alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 277/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 277 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6216 August 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 277

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6216 August 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 277/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| 2019/C 277/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 14 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 277/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

2019/C 277/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2217

MICHELLE JOHNSON BAH; MOUNTAGA BAH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

HSBC BANK USA; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; REAL TIME 

RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; WELLS FARGO BANK WEST N.A.; HUD,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-

cv-03429-RWT)

Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary E. Goulet, WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C., 

Reston, Virginia, for Appellants. Amy S. Owen, Elizabeth S. 

Finberg, COCHRAN & OWEN, L.L.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michelle Johnson Bah and Mountaga Bah appeal from the 

district court’s order dismissing their civil action, pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), in which they sought to prevent 

foreclosure proceedings against their home. We have reviewed 

the record and the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. 8:08-cv-03429-

RWT (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2009). We deny the Appellee’s motion to 

strike and for sanctions, and we dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Wallace Mountain Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Gelfand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of June, 2006.


/s/ Robert Gelfand
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 30 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 30

  To express the sense of the Congress that any Executive order that 
  infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress under article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require the expenditure of 
  Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the 
  Executive order, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless 
                            enacted as law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

   Mr. Metcalf (for himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Istook, Mr. 
 Herger, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Traficant, Mr. English, and Mr. Scarborough) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  To express the sense of the Congress that any Executive order that 
  infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress under article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require the expenditure of 
  Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the 
  Executive order, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless 
                            enacted as law.

Whereas some Executive orders have infringed on the prerogatives of the Congress 
        and resulted in the expenditure of Federal funds not appropriated for 
        the specific purposes of those Executive orders: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that any Executive order issued by 
the President before, on, or after the date of the approval of this 
resolution that infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require 
the expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the 
purpose of the Executive order, is advisory only and has no force or 
effect unless enacted as law.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.34.1
                                                                 ---------------



                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


  $354,979                                                         New York, NY
                                                                 January 3, 1998

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Yehuda Harats hereby promises to pay to the order of
Electric Fuel Corporation (EFC) with its principal place of business at 885
Third Avenue, New York, New York, the principal sum of Three Hundred and Fifty
Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Dollars, on December 31, 2007.

Yehuda Harats further promises to pay to EFC interest on the outstanding
principal sum as follows:

Interest will accrue on the loan until maturity and will be calculated at the
higher of:

1.   1%, over the Federal Fund Rate of 5.5% compounded on December 31, 1998 and
     thereafter on an annual calendar year basis (using a 365 day year).

                                       OR

2.   The percentage increase in the Israeli consumer price index between the
     date of the loan and the date of the annual interest calculation,
     calculated in New Israeli Shekels based on the original shekel amount of
     the loan NIS 1,259,465.

          The calculation under this option will at every annual accrual date be
          executed by taking the original NIS amount multiplied by the CPI
          increase to date and divided by the current exchange rate.

This Note is secured by a pledge to EFC of 719,000 shares of EFC.

At any given calculation date, the interest for the current period will be
charged by taking the higher of the two ending balances (principal and interest)
less the previously calculated balances.

This Note shall be deemed to have been made under and shall in all respects be
governed by the internal laws of the State of Delaware without reference to
conflicts of laws.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Note has been duly executed and delivered by


   /s/  Yehuda Harats
------------------------
MEMO

TO: US EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

FROM: Dr Garth Tayler. Chairman, BIA MACT Task Force

SUBJECT: NATION BRICK RESEARCH CENTER INVESTS IN A DMA

‐ 80 DIRECT MERCURY ANALYZER

DATE: 06/29/2015

BACKGROUND

In the deliberations that have taken place between the EPA and the BIA on the proposed Brick MACT

rule, mercury emissions from the brick manufacturing process has been in question for some time. The

EPA has proposed extremely low numeric limits for mercury that the industry believes cannot be met. In

addition to this, there is no evidence that APCD technology exists that the industry can use. The BIA has

pointed out to the EPA that the source of any potential mercury emission, albeit extremely low, is from

the clay raw materials used in the brick manufacturing process. The BIA has commented that the most

practical and fair MACT ruling at this stage for the clay brick industry would be for the EPA to defer the

application of a numeric standard for mercury emission in the MACT rule until more emissions data and

knowledge is obtained on nature of the mercury, potential mercury emissions and the suited achievable

technology needed to reduce emissions, if deemed a requirement. The suggestion has also been put

forward to apply work practices in the MACT rule, which will enable the industry to gather a substantial

amount of knowledge and data on the nature of the mercury and on how to control potential emissions.

DMA

‐ 80 DIRECT MERCURY ANALYZER

In order to gain more knowledge and understanding of the mercury quantities in the brick industry raw

materials and to try to relate this data to potential emissions, the industry, through its research facility,

The National Brick Research Center (NBRC), has acquired, at great expense, a DMA

‐ 80 Direct Mercury

Analyzer.

The industry’s commitment in purchasing this instrument will enable the BIA to conduct extensive

analyses of the brick making raw materials. The application of EPA test method 7473 will be carried out

to create an extensive data base. With knowledge of volume flow, moisture contents and PM levels,

using methods 1, 4 and 5, the industry will attempt to correlate the mercury contents found in the

materials with tested stack emissions. Further analysis of the species of the mercury in question will also

be carried out over the forthcoming years, with a view to establishing a clear understanding of the best

way to control mercury emissions, should this be required.

It is only by the accumulation of valid scientific information of this kind that will enable the EPA, working

with the BIA, to develop a MACT rule that is both achievable, as well as beneficial to the environment

and mankind.
Case *No.*14,890a.

#### UNITED STATES v. CRITTENDEN.

[Hempst. 61.]1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

Oct., 1828.

Indictment—Allegation op Time—Conclusión.

1. Indictment is quashable in which the time is alleged “on or about” such a day.

2. It is also quashable for failing to conclude “against the peace and dignity of the United States.”

Indictment [against Robert Crittenden] for sending a challenge to fight a duel.

Before JOHNSON. ESKRIDGE, BATES, and TRIMBLE, JJ.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel H. Hempstead, Esq.]

OPINION OP

THE COURT.

The defendant moved the court to quash the indictment, because the time therein stated was in the alternative “on or about,” and because the indictment does not conclude “against the peace and dignity of the United States;” and the parties being heard, and full consideration thereof had, it is the opinion of the court that for either of the objections the indictment should be quashed.

Indictment quashed, and defendant discharged.
[Cite as State ex rel. Lowe v. Callahan, 136 Ohio St.3d 324, 2013-Ohio-3689.]

[T HE S TATE EX REL .] L OWE , A PPELLANT , v. C ALLAHAN , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Lowe v. Callahan, 136 Ohio St.3d 324, 2013-Ohio-3689.] Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of procedendo affirmed—Procedendo will not compel th e performance of a duty that has already been performed. (No. 2013-0441—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided September 4, 2013.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 26758.

____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying relief to appellant, Dennis Ray Lowe, on his compla int for a writ of procedendo. Lowe seeks to compel appellee, Judge Lynne Callahan, to issue a ruling on his motion in arrest of judgment. He alleges that he filed hi s motion on August 10, 2012, and that Judge Callahan has not ruled on it. {¶ 2} Judge Callahan moved the court of appeals to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the action was moot because she had ruled on Lowe’s motion on August 22, 2012. The Ninth Dist rict Court of Appeals granted the motion. Lowe appealed as of right. {¶ 3} In his first proposition of law, Lo we argues that Judge Callahan’s ruling on August 22, 2012, was on the wrong issue. Lowe claims that his motion dealt with a structural-error violation, not a speedy-trial violation. He claims that the judge’s failure to rule on the correct violation violates his due-process rights. In his second proposition of law, he likewis e argues that the Ni nth District should not have dismissed his complaint for a writ of procedendo, because the judge did not rule on his structural-error challenge.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 4} As the court below correctly reas oned, relief is unwarranted here because procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos , 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008- Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy , 102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6. Judge Callahan ruled on Lowe’s motion on August 22, 2012, only 12 days after he had filed it. Therefore, the judge has performed the duty that the writ of procedendo seeks to compel. {¶ 5} Lowe’s argument is not that the judge failed to rule on his motion but that she addressed the wrong issue in her ruling. That argument should have been raised in an appeal of the ruling rather than in an action for a writ of procedendo. {¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

____________________ Dennis Ray Lowe, pro se. Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 232 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 232

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2000

        Received; referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress concerning the safety and well-
   being of United States citizens injured while traveling in Mexico.

Whereas hundreds of United States citizens travel by automobile to Mexico every 
        day;
Whereas United States automobile insurance in not valid in Mexico and travellers 
        may purchase additional insurance to cover potential liability or injury 
        while in Mexico;
Whereas in cases where additional insurance is not purchased and a United States 
        citizen is involved in an automobile accident, the American will be 
        subject to a bond requirement before being permitted to return to the 
        United States; and
Whereas in a recent incident, a United States citizen injured in an automobile 
        accident in Mexico was not transferred to a United States hospital for 
        18 hours, even after medical personnel in Mexico recommended his 
        immediate transfer to the United States for emergency treatment, until 
        the family posted the bond set by Mexican authorities: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that, in order to protect the 
safety and well-being of United States citizens travelling in Mexico, 
the President should continue to negotiate with the Government of 
Mexico to establish procedures, including a humanitarian exemption to 
Mexican bond requirements, to ensure the expedited return of United 
States citizens injured in Mexico to the United States for medical 
treatment, if necessary.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
(Reap. Dec. 11088)

#### The Hoenig Plywood Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 721393.

(Decided October 19, 1965)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for tbe plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by tbe undersigned, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court:

> 1. That tbe subject merchandise consists of bardboard exported from Sweden as to wbicb tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to tbe Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and tbe foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to tbe merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of tbe Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, tbe appraiser appraised all of tbe merchandise in tbe appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That tbe plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to tbe values referred to in tbe above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at tbe times relevant herein tbe purchase price and the foreign market value under tbe said Antidumping Act are as specified in tbe aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> *6318. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

March 16, 1961

No. 65288.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/5359 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 99.1

                   PMSI DIVESTS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AND
                             COMMUNICATION BUSINESS


July 30, 1997, New York New York - PHARMACEUTICAL MARKETING SERVICES INC.
(PMSI) (Nasdaq:PMRX), a leading international provider of information services
to the pharmaceutical and health care industry, today announced that it had
completed the divestiture of its international publishing and communications
operation based in the Netherlands.

The company announced that its Dutch and US-based international publishing and
communications operations, PMSI - Bugamor, had been acquired by Excerpta Medica,
the medical communications arm of Elsevier Science, to complement its other
medical and technical publishing capabilities. The terms of the transaction were
not disclosed. PMSI also noted that Excerpta Medica had taken a lease for office
space in PMSI's building in Almere, The Netherlands.

PMSI stated in May 1996 that it intended to concentrate on its core activities
of information services to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, and
that it would be divesting its non database segment and its international
publishing business, Bugamor. Bugamor was recorded in the Company's financial
reports as part of its continuing operations and was the second largest of the
businesses to be divested in the program, leaving only IMR, PMSI's French point
of sale business, still to be divested.

PMSI provides a range of information services to pharmaceutical and healthcare
companies in the United States, Europe and Japan, to enable them to optimise
their sales and marketing performance. Most of the Company's information
services are generated from PMSI's proprietary databases which contain unique
prescription, managed care, healthcare market and medical prescriber data.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I, Monty Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nevada Star Resource Corp. certify that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nevada Star Resource Corp. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nevada Star Resource Corp.



Date:  July 15, 2005

/s/ Monty Moore





Monty Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
No. 59854.

#### Armand Schwab & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 201610-K, etc. (New York).

*405Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. O. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.