alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022016EN.01000401.xml

| 13.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/4

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2022/C 16/03)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 24 September 2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 87374 |
| Decision No | 223/21/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 amendments to the aid scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover |
| Legal basis | Act on the temporary subsidy scheme for enterprises with a significant reduction in turnover after August 2020 |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Compensate losses and thereby limit the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | Estimated NOK 2 billion |
| Intensity | 70-90 % |
| Duration | Until 31 October 2021 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, companies engaged in production, transmission, distribution and trade of electric power, financial institutions and companies whose main purpose is investment activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Brønnøysund Register Centre |
| Brønnøysundregistrene |
| Postboks 900 |
| N-8910 Brønnøysund |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

24 September 2021

Case No

87374

Decision No

223/21/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

COVID-19 amendments to the aid scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover

Legal basis

Act on the temporary subsidy scheme for enterprises with a significant reduction in turnover after August 2020

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Compensate losses and thereby limit the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

Estimated NOK 2 billion

Intensity

70-90 %

Duration

Until 31 October 2021

Economic sectors

All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, companies engaged in production, transmission, distribution and trade of electric power, financial institutions and companies whose main purpose is investment activities

Name and address of the granting authority

The Brønnøysund Register Centre

Brønnøysundregistrene

Postboks 900

N-8910 Brønnøysund

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Internet: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
# C_2009259EN.01003101.xml

| 29.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/31

---

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

2009/C 259/10

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 1 July 2009 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 66730 |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Prolongation of the schemes relating to support to audiovisual productions and to support for film production companies until 31 December 2009 |
| Legal basis | : | Regulation of 28 July 2005 on support to audiovisual productions and Regulation No 1017 of 18 September 2002 on film support to production companies. |
| Type of measure | : | Grants |
| Objective | : | Promote culture |
| Form of aid | : | Direct grants |
| Budget | : | The overall budget of the Scheme relating to support to audiovisual productions is of approximately NOK 290 million per year.
  For the scheme on support to film production companies, funds are allocated through the general transfer to the Norwegian Film Fund. |
| Duration | : | Until 31 December 2009 |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

1 July 2009

Case number

:

66730

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Prolongation of the schemes relating to support to audiovisual productions and to support for film production companies until 31 December 2009

Legal basis

:

Regulation of 28 July 2005 on support to audiovisual productions and Regulation No 1017 of 18 September 2002 on film support to production companies.

Type of measure

:

Grants

Objective

:

Promote culture

Form of aid

:

Direct grants

Budget

:

The overall budget of the Scheme relating to support to audiovisual productions is of approximately NOK 290 million per year.

For the scheme on support to film production companies, funds are allocated through the general transfer to the Norwegian Film Fund.

Duration

:

Until 31 December 2009

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---
Filed 1/21/15 P. v. Namchek CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

SANDRA NAMCHEK, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B257788 

(Super. Ct. No. 2012016608) 

(Ventura County) 

 Sandra Namchek appeals her conviction by plea to possession of 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and identity theft (Pen. Code, 

§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)), entered after the trial court denied her motion to suppress evidence. 

(Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted 

probation with 110 days in county jail. 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After 

examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

 On October 24, 2014. we advised appellant that she had 30 days within 

which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. 

We have received no response from appellant. 

 The preliminary hearing transcript reflects that the Port Hueneme Police 

responded to a domestic dispute call, conducted a probation search of appellant, and 
2

found a $1,046.95 check in the name of Bradford Bumpus III and a Chase bank statement 

issued to Maria Garcia in appellant's bag. Appellant was carrying: a digital scale 

covered with narcotics residue; information about the Bumpus check, the bank routing 

number and account number, and the victim's home address; day planners and calendars 

with the personal information of two individuals; and access card information for five 

other individuals. ~(CT 41)~ Appellant was also carrying two glass pipes and a small 

plastic baggie of .66 grams of methamphetamine. The victim, Bradford Bumpus, advised 

a police detective that his rent check was stolen from the drop box at his apartment 

complex. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-

126.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 YEGAN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 PERREN, J 
3

Roger Lund, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Suzan E. Hier, Staff Attorney for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00231-CV

IN RE Michael Andrew DAVIS and Waterfleet, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2021

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. We may 

issue writs of mandamus when “agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs.” TEX.

GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b). For mandamus, a relator has the burden to file a petition and record 

showing “the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.” In re 

H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 

Having reviewed the petition and record, we conclude relators have not satisfied their burden. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition and motion for temporary relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI13387 pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas, the Honorable Larry Noll presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
INCOME STATEMENT FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,256,913
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,169,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                   173,844
<INVENTORY>                                    210,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,245,080
<PP&E>                                       8,427,627
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,729,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,781,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,482,950
<BONDS>                                      2,589,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,768
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,797,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,781,497
<SALES>                                      7,645,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,645,557
<CGS>                                        1,684,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,235,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,215,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                124,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Theragenics Corporation, (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francis
      J. Tarallo, Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company
                as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the
                Report.








Date: November
                8, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Francis
                J. TaralloFrancis
                J. TaralloChief
                Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Theragenics Corporation and will be retained by Theragenics Corporation and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Drone!UAS Practice Group

# ANTONELLI 

# LAWU.S
. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Amendment ofRequest for Exemption under Section 333 ID: FAA-2015-0261-0001 Dear Sir or Madam: 100 North LaSalle Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel. 312.201.8310 Jeff rey ( £]lAntonelli-Law.com March 24,2015

This letter is to amend the Request for Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 filed on behalf of Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc
. ("AIR") on February 3, 2015. AIR hereby amends Section III(B) of the request to indicate that the SUAS will operate at a maximum height of 200 feet AGL, rather than 400 feet AGL. All subsequent references to "400 feet AGL" (including that in proposed condition 5) are also amended to refer to "200 feet AGL." This amendment will simplify the issues that the FAA needs to decide. Therefore, AIR requests expedited approval ofthe pending 333 request for exemption
.

Je r Attorney for Aerial Inspec i ; OfCounsel Mark C. Del Bianco 3929 Washington Street Kensington, MD 20895 Tel: 301.933.7216 Cell: 301.602.5892 mark @ma rkdelbianco.comOf Counsel Kate D. Fletcher Airline Transport Pilot License Type rated in: CE-500 (Citation Jet) SF-340 (Saab turbo prop) DC-9 (turbo-jet) B-73 7 (Boeing 73 7) B-757 (Boeing 757) B-767 (Boeing 767) First Class Medical Certificate Tel: 312.285.4359 kate ( Zil
.

kdf1ctchcrlaw. com
§ 303.63 Filing procedures. ( a ) *General.* Applications required under this subpart shall be filed with the appropriate FDIC office. The appropriate forms and instructions may be obtained upon request from any FDIC regional director.
( b ) *Merger transactions.* Applications for approval of merger transactions shall be accompanied by copies of all agreements or proposed agreements relating to the merger transaction and any other information requested by the FDIC.
( c ) *Interim merger transactions.* Applications for approval of interim merger transactions and any related deposit insurance applications shall be made by filing the forms and other documents required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and such other information as may be required by the FDIC for consideration of the request for deposit insurance.
[67 FR 79247, Dec. 27, 2002, as amended at 73 FR 2145, Jan. 14, 2008]
# C_2006045EN.01001401.xml

| 23.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 July 2005

in Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, PIL and others, and The Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(State aid — Exemptions from energy tax for the manufacturing and mining industries — Admissibility — Selectivity — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Existing aid and new aid — Recovery — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

(State aid — Exemptions from energy tax for the manufacturing and mining industries — Admissibility — Selectivity — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Existing aid and new aid — Recovery — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

(2006/C 45/10)

In Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord, PIL and others, and The Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 concerning environmental tax measures in Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 21 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Joins Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the applications; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the applications;

| 3. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
# C_2017377EN.01000901.xml

| 9.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/9

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2017/C 377/09)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 8 August 2017 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 80872 |
| Decision No | : | 146/17/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | The county of Hordaland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Continued financing of CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad |
| Legal basis | : | The budget for 2017 (Meld. St. 1 (2016-2017), Innst. 2 S (2016-2017) |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Grant, Other |
| Budget | : | NOK 652 million |
| Intensity | : | 81 % |
| Duration | : | 2017 - 2020 |
| Economic sectors | : | Electricity, gas and water supply |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Gassnova SF |
| Dokkvegen 10 |
| NO-3920 Porsgrunn |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

8 August 2017

Case No

Case No

:

80872

Decision No

Decision No

:

146/17/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

Region

:

The county of Hordaland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Continued financing of CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad

2

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

The budget for 2017 (Meld. St. 1 (2016-2017), Innst. 2 S (2016-2017)

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid

Objective

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant, Other

Budget

Budget

:

NOK 652 million

Intensity

Intensity

:

81 %

Duration

Duration

:

2017 - 2020

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Electricity, gas and water supply

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Gassnova SF

Dokkvegen 10

NO-3920 Porsgrunn

NORWAY

| Ministry of Petroleum and Energy |
| --- |
| Akersgata 59, 0033 Oslo |
| PO Box 8148 Dep. |
| NO-0033 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

Akersgata 59, 0033 Oslo

PO Box 8148 Dep.

NO-0033 Oslo

NORWAY

Other information

Other information

:

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
# C_2023096EN.01000401.xml

| 15.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 March 2023

(2023/C 96/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0737 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4447 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88054 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,2880 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9784 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,3350 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,791 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 391,50 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6878 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9218 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,3732 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6052 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4689 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4248 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7198 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4428 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 402,36 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,3931 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3758 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 492,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8177 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,134 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,010 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,6136 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0920 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 88,4310 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0737

JPY

Japanese yen

144,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4447

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88054

SEK

Swedish krona

11,2880

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9784

ISK

Iceland króna

151,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,3350

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,791

HUF

Hungarian forint

391,50

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6878

RON

Romanian leu

4,9218

TRY

Turkish lira

20,3732

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6052

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4689

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4248

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7198

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4428

KRW

South Korean won

1 402,36

ZAR

South African rand

19,3931

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3758

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 492,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8177

PHP

Philippine peso

59,134

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,010

BRL

Brazilian real

5,6136

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0920

INR

Indian rupee

88,4310

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 367.19 Exceptions to suspensions and exclusions. ( a ) Exceptions to the effects of suspensions and exclusions may be available in unique circumstances, where there are compelling reasons to utilize a particular contractor for a specific task. Requests for such exceptions may be submitted only by the FDIC program office requesting the contract services.
( b ) In the case of the modification or extension of an existing contract, the Ethics Counselor may except such a contracting action from the effects of suspension and/or exclusion upon a determination, in writing, that a compelling reason exists for utilization of the contractor in the particular instance. The Ethics Counselor's authority under this section shall not be delegated to any lower official.
( c ) In the case of new contracts, the Corporation Ethics Committee may except a particular new contract from the effects of suspension and/or exclusion upon a determination in writing that a compelling reason exists for utilization of the contractor in the particular instance.
#### REDDON V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 19, 1913.)

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

E. H. Hill, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J. —

No error in the record and the cause is affirmed.
#### BAILEY V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 24, 1913.)

Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court.

Heard before'Hon. Lum Duke.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. 0. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, J. —

Prosecution under section 6364, et seq., Code 1907, requiring assignments of error on appeal. There being no assignments the cause is affirmed.