alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008256EN.01001101.xml

| 9.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/11

---

Publication of the decision regarding Leifur Eiríksson Air Terminal Ltd — Decision to not raise any objections

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2008/C 256/06)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4 June 2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Case number | 60 482 |
| EFTA State | Iceland |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Alleged State aid granted to Leifur Eiríksson Air Terminal Ltd |
| Legal basis | Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | Licence to operate duty-free shop |
| Objective | — |
| Form of aid | — |
| Budget | — |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | — |
| Economic sectors | — |
| Name and address of the granting authority | — |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

4 June 2008

Case number

Case number

60 482

EFTA State

EFTA State

Iceland

Region

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Alleged State aid granted to Leifur Eiríksson Air Terminal Ltd

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

Type of measure

Licence to operate duty-free shop

Objective

Objective

—

Form of aid

Form of aid

—

Budget

Budget

—

Intensity

Intensity

—

Duration

Duration

—

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

—

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

—

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/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17689]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0223; FRL-9837-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Atlanta, 
Georgia 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further 
Progress Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing 
the May 29, 2013, direct final rule to approve Georgia's October 21, 
2009, state implementation plan (SIP) submission to address the 
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan requirements for the Atlanta, 
Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) nonattainment area. EPA is considering this comment and will 
address the comment in a subsequent action. EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 78 FR 32135 on May 29, 2013, 
is withdrawn as of July 24, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson, Air Planning Branch, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone number: (404) 562-9061; Email: 
waterson.sara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32135), EPA published 
a direct final rulemaking to approve Georgia's October 21, 2009, SIP 
submission to address the RFP plan requirements for the Atlanta, 
Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area. In the direct final 
rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by June 28, 
2013, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On June 28, 
2013, EPA received a comment. EPA interprets this comment as adverse 
and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing a portion of the direct final rule. 
EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon 
the proposed rulemaking action, also published on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 
32222). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
Accordingly, the direct final rule which published in the Federal 
Register on May 29, 2013, at 78 FR 32135 is withdrawn as of July 24, 
2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-17689 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Exhibit 4.1









                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS







We consent to the use of our report dated December 14, 1999 (except as to note 7
which is as of July 28, 2000 and note 14 which is as of August 1, 2000), in the
Amended Registration Statement on Form 20-F dated June 20, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Haemacure Corporation for the year
ended October 31, 1999.








Montreal, Canada                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
December 14, 1999                                       Chartered Accountants
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            3409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       98
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3573
<PP&E>                                           31207
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1132
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       25034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26166
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3901
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    944
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.28
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                           8,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,210
<INVENTORY>                                     25,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,022
<PP&E>                                          49,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,947
<SALES>                                        177,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               227,097
<CGS>                                          106,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   479
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,225
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,095)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,320
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76


</TABLE>
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3234

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York, as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3234

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York,

as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3234 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Of5 fice Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 28,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 33-70050, 33-80985, 333-32237 and 333-57754 of Aldila, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report datedFebruary 12, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aldila, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

 
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| San Diego, California          |
| March 30, 2004                 |
EXHIBIT 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  th
 /s/ John F. Meier

John F. Meier
    
    Director, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer/s/ Richard I. Reynolds

Richard I. Reynolds
    
    Director, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer/s/ Carlos V. Duno

Carlos V. Duno
    
    Director/s/ William A. Foley

William A. Foley
    
    Director/s/ Peter C. McC. Howell

Peter C. McC. Howell
    
    DirectorDeborah G. Miller
    
    Director/s/ Carol B. Moerdyk

Carol B. Moerdyk
    
    Director/s/ Jean-René Gougelet

Jean-René Gougelet
    
    Director/s/ Terence P. Stewart

Terence P. Stewart
    
    Director/s/ John C. Orr

John C. Orr
    
    Director
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3462

To designate the headquarters building of the Department of Education 

in Washington, DC, as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

Mr. GREEN of Texas (for himself and Mr. BARTON of Texas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To designate the headquarters building of the Department 

of Education in Washington, DC, as the Lyndon Baines 

Johnson Federal Building.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The headquarters building of the Department of 

5 Education located at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Wash6 ington, DC, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lyn7 don Baines Johnson Federal Building’’. 
2

•HR 3462 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building’’.

Æ
§ 4.76 Penalties. ( a ) *Penalties under section 10(k) of FDI Act ( 12 U.S.C. 1820(k) ).* If a senior examiner of a national bank or savings association, after leaving the employment of the OCC, accepts compensation as an employee, officer, director, or consultant from that bank, savings association, or any company (including a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company) that controls that bank or savings association in violation of § 4.74, then the examiner shall, in accordance with section 10(k)(6) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6)), be subject to one of the following penalties— ( 1 ) An order— ( i ) Removing the individual from office or prohibiting the individual from further participation in the affairs of the relevant national bank, savings association, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company, or other company that controls such institution for a period of up to five years; and
( ii ) Prohibiting the individual from participating in the affairs of any insured depository institution for a period of up to five years; or
( 2 ) A civil monetary penalty of not more than $250,000.
( b ) *Enforcement by appropriate Federal banking agency.* Violations of § 4.74 shall be administered or enforced by the appropriate Federal banking agency for the depository institution or depository institution holding company that provided compensation to the former senior examiner. For purposes of this paragraph, the appropriate Federal banking agency for a company that is not a depository institution or depository institution holding company shall be the Federal banking agency that formerly employed the senior examiner.
( c ) *Scope of prohibition orders.* Any senior examiner who is subject to an order issued under paragraph (a) of this section shall, as required by 12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6)(B), be subject to paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 8(e) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(e)(6)-(7)) in the same manner and to the same extent as a person subject to an order issued under section 8(e).
( d ) *Procedures.* The procedures applicable to actions under paragraph (a) of this section are provided in section 10(k)(6) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6)) and in 12 CFR part 19.
( e ) *Remedies not exclusive.* The OCC may seek both of the penalties described in paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, a senior examiner who accepts compensation as described in § 4.74 may be subject to other administrative, civil or criminal remedies or penalties as provided in law.
[60 FR 57322, Nov. 15, 1995, as amended at 76 FR 43564, July 21, 2011]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 40479 S ummary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Brandon Sanchez,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 1122

- 1

Before **Southwick, Oldham,** and **Wilson** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Brandon Sanchez pleaded guilty to a drug crime. He timely filed a notice of appeal. His attorney later moved to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See also United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez filed a pro se response objecting to his attorney’s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 30, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40479 Document: 00516260767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022No. 19

- 40479

2 motion to withdraw. We agree with defense counsel that there is no nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. We briefly address one question implicated in the briefing: whether the district court erred by including in the wr itten judgment supervised

release conditions from the presentence report ’s appendix and the district court’s standing orders, which contain a list of standard conditions. The answer is no. See United States v. Martinez , 15 F.4th 1179, 1180

– 81 (5th Cir.

202 1); United States v. Aguilar

- Cerda , ___ F.4th ___, No. 20

- 10866, 2022 WL 712810, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2022)

. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , Sanchez’s motion for appointment of counsel is **DENIED** , and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2. Case: 19-40479 Document: 00516260767 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

Hewlett-Packard Company 

Under Contract No. GS-35F-4663G 

Delivery Order Nos. B301, B302 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 57940, 57941 

James D. Bachman, Esq. 

Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq. 

Doyle & Bachman, LLP 

Arlington, VA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Ildiko E. Szentkiralyi, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeals have been settled. Accordingly, they are dismissed from the Board's 

docket with prejudice. 

Dated: 29 April 2014 

minist ive Judge 

ed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 57940, 57941, Appeals of 

Hewlett-Packard Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
§ 352.1 Purpose. ( a ) One purpose of this part is to implement the spirit of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the Rehabilitation Act) as amended by section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978 and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities conducted by a federal executive agency. Although the FDIC does not believe that Congress contemplated coverage of non-appropriated, independent regulatory agencies such as the FDIC, the FDIC has chosen to promulgate this final regulation to ensure that, to the extent practicable, persons with disabilities are provided with equal access to FDIC programs and activities.
( b ) This part is also intended to implement section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended. Section 508 requires each federal agency or department to ensure that the electronic and information technology they procure allows individuals with disabilities access to that technology comparable to the access of those who are not disabled, unless the agency would incur an undue burden.
February 13, 2014 

On behalf of my son, Jordan Frank, I would like to request an extension for an 

exemption that we received which allows him to use a CARES support device 

while flying. The exemption number is 10510 from 14 CFR (FAR Section)-~~rt: 

121.311 (b). The docket number is FAA-2012-0382. ~: 

Thank you very much, 

Steve Frank 

11722 268th DR NE 

Duvall, WA 98019 

I\ 

·~~·?~.~. 

~~;.:~~~?~ 

;_:::-~~?~) 

,.,
#### Amos Ladd *vs.*Joseph E. Callahan.

Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Banks, Avery and Jennings, Js.

Argued February 7th

—decided March 5th, 1935.

*DeLancey S. Pelgrift,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Joseph F. Berry,*with whom was *Harris S. Cramer,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries as the result of being struck by an automobile driven by the defendant. Liability was admitted and the sole question for the jury to determine was the amount of damages which the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The medical experts called as witnesses by both parties were in agreement that the plaintiff suffered, among other injuries, one to his head. The testimony offered by the plaintiff was to the effect that from the date of the accident to the time of the trial *702the plaintiff had suffered from headaches, insomnia and dizziness, caused by his injuries suffered in the accident; while that offered by the defendant was to the effect that from a time two or three months previous to the trial these injuries had ceased to be a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff suffering or incapacity, but that his condition was due to faulty metabolism and bad teeth. The sole ground of appeal is that the trial court in its charge did not sufficiently instruct the jury that they could only award damages to the plaintiff for such suffering and incapacity as they found to have resulted from the injuries suffered in the accident. It is true that the court did not specifically give an instruction to this effect. It did, however, charge the jury that they were to award the plaintiff damages for the pain and discomfort which he had suffered “as a result” of his injuries. And it further instructed them that the difficulty of the case grew out of the disagreement as to when, if at all, in the words of the defendant’s attorney, “The brain injury wore off;” it then stated the claims of the parties; and after some comment upon the testimony of the doctors, it ended its charge, except as to certain formal matters, as follows: “One set of doctors think it [the injury to the head] was pretty substantial at the beginning and that it does now exist, and the other set that it was slight.at the beginning, and, if existing now, it is a slight cause of this gentleman’s present difficulty.” The tenor of the whole charge is such that the jury could not have failed to understand that they could not award damages for suffering and incapacity on the part of the plaintiff except in so far as they found that such suffering and incapacity resulted from injury received at the time of the accident.

There is no error.
###### Editorial Note on Part 741

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 741 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 741.227 Loans to credit unions.

Any credit union that is insured pursuant to Title II of the Act must adhere to the requirements in § 701.25 of this chapter.

[86 FR 11085, Feb. 23, 2021]
Exhibit 23

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                    -----------------------------------------

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
    incorporation by reference of our reports dated November 1, 1996,
    included in or incorporated by reference into ThermoLase Corporation's
    Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 28, 1996, into
    the Company's previously filed Registration Statements as follows:
    Registration Statement No. 33-88396 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
    No. 33-88398 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-88394 on Form
    S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-88400 on Form S-8, Registration
    Statement No. 33-80749 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-84516
    on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 33-94658 on Form S-3.



                                                Arthur Andersen LLP



    Boston, Massachusetts
    December 5, 1996