alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008250EN.01001001.xml

| 2.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/10

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 250/05)

| Aid No | XS 136/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | — |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Regeling LNV-subsidies (onderdeel: Beroepsopleiding en voorlichting voor agro-MKB ondernemingen (niet zijnde primaire landbouwondernemingen) en bosbouwondernemingen, onderdeel demonstratieprojecten) |
| Legal basis | — | Regeling LNV-subsidies: artikel 1:2, artikel 1:3, artikel 1:20, artikel 2:14; artikel 2:16 tot en met 2:20; |

Aid No

XS 136/07

Member State

Netherlands

Region

—

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Regeling LNV-subsidies (onderdeel: Beroepsopleiding en voorlichting voor agro-MKB ondernemingen (niet zijnde primaire landbouwondernemingen) en bosbouwondernemingen, onderdeel demonstratieprojecten)

Legal basis

—

Regeling LNV-subsidies: artikel 1:2, artikel 1:3, artikel 1:20, artikel 2:14; artikel 2:16 tot en met 2:20;

| — | Openstellingsbesluit LNV-subsidies |
| --- | --- |

—

Openstellingsbesluit LNV-subsidies

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 11,32 million

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

1.4.2007

Duration

30.6.2008

Objective

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Economic sectors

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministerie van Landbouw Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit |
| --- |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| Nederland |

Ministerie van Landbouw Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Postbus 20401

2500 EK Den Haag

Nederland

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20582 

 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

ESCOTELL AMEILIO ROBLES, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On January 16, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on that same 

day, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(ECF No. 18) is ADOPTED. 

 

1:14-cr-20582-TLL-PTM Doc # 19 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 62
 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement (ECF No. 17) is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: February 3, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on February 3, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cr-20582-TLL-PTM Doc # 19 Filed 02/03/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 63
# C_2011252EN.01002601.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/26

---

Action brought on 5 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-352/11)

2011/C 252/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to grant permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive), to reconsider or if necessary renew and check compliance with existing permits, in order to ensure that all existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the IPPC directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to grant permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive), to reconsider or if necessary renew and check compliance with existing permits, in order to ensure that all existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the IPPC directive;

| — | Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to the provisions of the IPPC Directive, (1) since 30 October 2007‘existing installations’ within the meaning of that directive require a permit.

1

According to the information currently available to the Commission, at the relevant time not all of those ‘existing installations’ situated in the Republic of Austria are in possession of the necessary permit.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8)

1

---
- 2941
- 2942
- 2943
- 2944
- 2945
- 2946
- 2947
- 2948
- 2949
- 2950
- 2951
- 2952
- 2953
- 2954
- 2955
- 2956
- 2957
- 2958
- 2959
- 2960
- 2961
- 2962
- 2963
- 2964
- 2965
§ 90.13 Definitions of normal operation and statutory objective. For purposes of §§ 90.14, and 90.15, the terms *normal operation* and *statutory objective* shall have the following meaning: ( a ) *Normal operation* means the operation of a program or activity without significant changes that would impair its ability to meet its objectives.
( b ) *Statutory objective* means any purpose of a program or activity expressly stated in any Federal statute, State statute, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body.
#### Frank O’Donnell, *Appellant, v.*Louis Leubuscher, *Respondent, Impleaded, etc*.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
# Senate Floor Activity - Wednesday, July 16, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Wednesday, July 16)

H.R. 1528

H.R. 3212

S. 2578

 228

S.Res. 503

S.Res. 504

## Executive Business (Wednesday, July 16)

PN1187

PN1225

 226

 227

PN1476

PN1516

PN1551

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1364]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, April 6, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact person for More Information: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-1364 Filed 3-15-07; 4:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
§ 630.230 How and when must I identify workplaces? ( a ) You must identify all known workplaces under each National Science Foundation award. A failure to do so is a violation of your drug-free workplace requirements. You may identify the workplaces— ( 1 ) To the National Science Foundation official that is making the award, either at the time of application or upon award; or
( 2 ) In documents that you keep on file in your offices during the performance of the award, in which case you must make the information available for inspection upon request by National Science Foundation officials or their designated representatives.
( b ) Your workplace identification for an award must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (*e.g.,* all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio studios).
( c ) If you identified workplaces to the National Science Foundation awarding official at the time of application or award, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and any workplace that you identified changes during the performance of the award, you must inform the National Science Foundation awarding official.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

REINHOLD V. SOMMERSTEDT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-17563

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00273-RCJGWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Reinhold V. Sommerstedt appeals pro se from the district court’s order

holding him in civil contempt for failing to obey its orders requiring him to file a

certification of compliance stating that he notified customers of the underlying

FILED

SEP 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17563

summary judgment and injunction against him. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a civil contempt order. Irwin

v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found Sommerstedt in

contempt for his failure to comply with its orders requiring him to file a

certification stating his compliance with the underlying injunction’s customer

notification requirement. See id. (person subject to injunction generally may not

contest its lawfulness by disobeying it). 

Under the law of the case doctrine, we do not consider Sommerstedt’s

challenges to the district court’s underlying summary judgment for the United

States or to the resulting injunction’s customer notification requirement. See Leslie

Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Under law of the

case doctrine, . . . one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider matters

resolved in a prior appeal to another panel in the same case.”). 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 126.210 When required.

Except as provided by §§ 126.120 and 126.260, no OSV may be operated without a valid Certificate of Inspection.
2:14-cr-20520-MFL-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 10
2:14-cr-20520-MFL-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 11
2:14-cr-20520-MFL-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 12
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>

CATSKILL FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

<CAPTION>
                                                           Year Ended September 30,
                                                         1997                       1996
                                                   (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                      <C>                        <C>
Net income applicable to common shares                   $    3,907                 $3,317

Weighted average common shares outstanding                4,629,697                    N/A<F1>

Net income per common share                              $      .84

Net income per common share--primary

  Weighted average common shares outstanding              4,629,697

  Dilutive common stock options(F2)                          93,418
                  
  Weighted average common shares and common
    shares equivalents outstanding                        4,723,115
                   
  Net income per common share--primary                   $      .83

                    
Net income per common share--fully diluted

  Weighted ave rage common shares outstanding             4,629,697

  Dilutive common stock options(F2)                         140,857
                  
  Weighted average common shares and common
    shares equivalents outstanding                        4,770,554
                  
Net income per common share--fully diluted               $      .82

<FN>                  
<F1>Earnings per share is only meaningful for the year ended September
    30, 1997, since the Company completed its initial public offering
    on April 18, 1996

<F2>Dilutive common stock options (includes restricted stock under
    the Company's MRP plan and options under its stock option plan) are
    based on the treasury stock method using average market price in computing
    net income per share--primary, and the higher of period-end market
    price or average market price in computing net income per common share--fully
    diluted
</TABLE>
§ 111.15-2 Battery construction. ( a ) A battery cell, when inclined at 40 degrees from the vertical, must not spill electrolyte.
( b ) Each fully charged lead-acid battery must have a specific gravity that meets Section 11 of IEEE 45.1-2017 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
( c ) Batteries must not evolve hydrogen at a rate exceeding that of a similar size lead-acid battery under similar charging condition.
( d ) Batteries must be constructed to take into account the environmental conditions of a marine installation, including temperature, vibration, and shock.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28277, June 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65196, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16361, Mar. 16, 2023]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 6170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID HILL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 25 , 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6170 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: David Hill appeals the district court’s order denying, pursuant to a prior prefiling injunction, Hill’s request for leave to file a motion for discovery, to submit supplemental citations, and for an expedited ruling on previously filed postjudgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Hill , No. 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2024). We grant Hill’s motion for leave to file an ov ersized informal brief, but den y Hill’s motion for remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the prefiling injunction and adjudicate the postjudgment motions Hill filed prior to imposition
of the prefiling injunction

. ∗ We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗ As to the latter issue, we note that another panel of this court recently issued an unpublished opinion denying Hill’s request for mandamus relief as related to those pending motions, but encouraged the district court to act as expeditiously as possible in resolving the motions. See In re Hill , No. 24

- 1182, 2024 WL 1715107, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2024). USCA4 Appeal: 24-6170 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 13.120 Renewal of tankerman endorsement. An applicant seeking renewal of a tankerman endorsement or an STCW endorsement valid for service on tank vessels must meet the requirements of § 10.227 of this subchapter, except § 10.227(e)(1), for renewing an MMC and meet the following additional requirements: ( a ) For endorsements as tankerman-PIC, advanced oil and chemical tanker cargo operation; and advanced liquefied gas tanker cargo operations, present evidence of— ( 1 ) At least 90 days of service during the preceding 5 years onboard a tank vessel for which the endorsement is valid, performing duties appropriate to the tankerman endorsement held; and participation in at least two transfers of liquid cargo in bulk of the type for which the endorsement is valid within the preceding 5 years; or
( 2 ) Completion of an approved course for Tankship: Dangerous Liquids or Tankship: Liquefied Gases, appropriate for the endorsement to be renewed, within the previous 5 years.
( b ) For endorsements as tankerman-assistant, basic oil and chemical tanker cargo operation; and basic liquefied gas tanker cargo operations, present evidence of— ( 1 ) At least 90 days of service during the preceding 5 years onboard a tank vessel for which the endorsement is valid, performing duties appropriate to the tankerman endorsement held; or
( 2 ) Completion of an approved course for Tankship: Dangerous Liquids or Tankship: Liquefied Gases, appropriate for the endorsement to be renewed, within the previous 5 years.
( c ) For endorsements as tankerman-PIC (Barge), present evidence of— ( 1 ) Participation in at least two transfers of liquid cargo in bulk of the type for which the endorsement is valid, within the preceding 5 years; or
( 2 ) Completion of a course approved for this purpose, appropriate for the endorsement to be renewed, within the previous 5 years.
( d ) For endorsements as tankerman-engineer, present evidence of— ( 1 ) At least 90 days of service during the preceding 5 years onboard a tank vessel for which the endorsement is valid, performing duties appropriate to the tankerman endorsement held; or
( 2 ) Completion of a course approved for this purpose, appropriate for the endorsement to be renewed, within the previous 5 years.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77989, Dec. 24, 2013]
Exhibit 21.1

LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.

SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

The active subsidiaries owned directly or indirectly by Loral Space & Communications Inc. as of
February 15, 2012, all 100% owned (except as noted below), consist of the following:



|                                                  |  |                     
|------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Loral Space & Communications Holdings Corporation |  | Delaware            
|Loral Skynet Corporation                          |  | Delaware            
|Loral Satmex LLC                                  |  | Delaware            
|Space Systems/Loral, Inc.                         |  | Delaware            
|International Space Technology, Inc.(1)           |  | Delaware            
|Cosmotech(1)                                      |  | Russian Federation  
|Loral General Partner, Inc.                       |  | Delaware            
|LGP (Bermuda) Ltd.                                |  | Bermuda             
|Loral Holdings LLC                                |  | Delaware            
|Mexico Satellite, LLC(2)                          |  | Delaware            
|Loral Global Services N.V.                        |  | Netherlands Antilles
|Loral Holdings Corporation                        |  | Delaware            
|4440480 Canada Inc.                               |  | Canada              
|4440498 Canada Inc.                               |  | Canada              
|SS/L Holdings, Inc.                               |  | Delaware            
|Loral Canadian Gateway Corporation                |  | Canada              

NOTES



|(1) | Only 57.1% voting and 47.7% economic interests owned directly or indirectly
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Only 77.78% owned directly or indirectly
|--- | ----------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.351 Location of 4m vent discharges. Except as prescribed in § 153.353, a 4m venting system must discharge: ( a ) At least 4m (approx. 13.1 ft) above the higher of: ( 1 ) the weatherdeck; or
( 2 ) any walkway that is within a 4m (approx. 13.1 ft) horizontal radius from the vent discharge.
( b ) At least 10m (approx. 32.8 ft) from air intakes for, or openings into, accommodation or service spaces.
[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21208, May 17, 1982]
###### Editorial Note on Part 147

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 147.5 Commandant (CG-ENG); address.

Commandant (CG-ENG) is the Office of Design and Engineering Standards. The mailing address is Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone 202-372-1372.

[USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60154, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3225, Jan. 21, 2022]