alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3830 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3830

**Commission Decision of 29/07/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3830 - GOLDMAN SACHS / TREOFAN) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 29.07.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/204122

To the notifying party:

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3830– Goldman Sachs/Treofan

Notification of 24/6/2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 162, 02/07/2005 page 7

1. On 24/6/2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Treofan Germany Gmbh & Co. KG (“Treofan”, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Goldman Sachs: global investment banking, securities and investment firm.

- for Treofan: manufacture and marketing of flexible packaging materials.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph (b) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

(signed)Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3238 

To make a supplemental appropriation to the Secretary of State to carry 

out the mission and activities of the United States Security Coordinator 

for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. OSSOFF (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To make a supplemental appropriation to the Secretary of 

State to carry out the mission and activities of the 

United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the 

Palestinian Authority. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘USSC Emergency Sup5 plemental Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3238 IS

1 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR UNITED 

2 STATES SECURITY COORDINATOR FOR 

3 ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. 

4 In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is 

5 appropriated to the Secretary of State, out of amounts in 

6 the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $10,000,000, to 

7 remain available until expended, to carry out the mission 

8 and activities of the United States Security Coordinator 

9 for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
From: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michae l.Palazzolo@alcoa.com> T o: David

Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Bilskis, Patricia A." <Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com>, "Mitchell, Kathryn M" <Kathryn.Mitchell@alcoa.com>

Date: 05/18/2012 02:20 PM
Subject: RE: POM test data for Intalco

- Part 1 of 2

____________

____________________________ David,
Earlier, we sent you the results for two test runs performed on dry scrubber stacks and one test run performed on wet roof scrubbers at Intalco. (Note that according to the PAL rule, one wet scrubber run consists of three simultaneous samples collected at three wet roof scrubbers. The three samples together represent a “pot cycle”.) These tests were performed in November 2011 and we sent you the full test report on February 9, 2012.
Intalco completed additional sampl ing in March 2012 and I am sending you the full test report in two separate emails due to the file size.

Results from both the November 2011 and March 2012 tests are summarized in the attached Excel file according to individual test runs

– in lb POM/ton a luminum produced. All of the test runs are valid and representative of normal potline emissions and control device performance. The average potline POM emission rate calculated from this data is 0.64 lb POM/ton aluminum and the proposed standard was 0.65 l b POM/ton.
We still believe that the SWPB limit needs to be revised to account for process and test method variability. Variability within this data set demonstrates that the Intalco SWPB potlines could not consistently comply with a “never

- to

- exceed” st andard set at 0.65 lb POM/ton. Hopefully this data provides EPA sufficient data to complete the necessary statistical analysis.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the data.
Thank you,

Mike

Michael Palazzolo Alcoa Inc. 201 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212

- 5858 Ph: 412

- 553

- 4832

__________________________ From: David Putney [mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 8:19 AM To: Palazzolo, Michael A. Subject: POM test data for Intalco Michael,I got your message regarding additional POM test data for the SWPB potlines at the Intalco facility. Yes

-

I absolutely would like to get a copy of that data and we will consider it while developing the final rule.
Thanks,
David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Pro tection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243

- 02 Ph: (919) 541

- 2016 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207 Email: putney.david@epa.gov(See attached file: 2011_and_2012_ Intalco_total_Potline_POM.xlsx)(See attached file: NW12ALINT118_C

- Line Engineering Testing_March 2012_Part 1 of 2.pdf)
# L_2005291EN.01004501.xml

| 5.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/45

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 3 November 2005

repealing Decision 2003/136/EC on the approval of the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and emergency vaccination of feral pigs against classical swine fever in Luxembourg

(notified under document number C(2005) 4193)

(Only the French text is authentic)

(2005/773/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (1), and in particular Articles 16(1), 25(3) and 29(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In 2001 classical swine fever was confirmed in the feral pig population in Luxembourg. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In 2001 classical swine fever was confirmed in the feral pig population in Luxembourg.

| (2) | By Commission Decision 2003/136/EC (2) the Commission approved the plans presented by Luxembourg for the eradication of classical swine fever in the feral pig population and the emergency vaccination of feral pigs. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By Commission Decision 2003/136/EC (2) the Commission approved the plans presented by Luxembourg for the eradication of classical swine fever in the feral pig population and the emergency vaccination of feral pigs.

| (3) | By Decision 2005/224/EC the Commission approved the termination of the plan for the emergency vaccination of feral pigs. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By Decision 2005/224/EC the Commission approved the termination of the plan for the emergency vaccination of feral pigs.

| (4) | It is apparent from information supplied by Luxembourg that classical swine fever in the feral pig population has been successfully eradicated and that the approved eradication plan no longer needs to be applied. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

It is apparent from information supplied by Luxembourg that classical swine fever in the feral pig population has been successfully eradicated and that the approved eradication plan no longer needs to be applied.

| (5) | It is therefore appropriate to repeal Decision 2003/136/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

It is therefore appropriate to repeal Decision 2003/136/EC.

| (6) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2003/136/EC is repealed.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the French Republic and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Done at Brussels, 3 November 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 316, 1.12.2001, p. 5. Directive as amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 53, 28.2.2003, p. 52. Decision as amended by Decision 2005/224/EC (OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 69).

2

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7945
ROY LEE OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE W. KOWALSKI, Special Agent DEA; NEAL GODFREY, Special Agent SBI; TIM MONROE, Detective Sergeant, Moore County Sheriff Department; SHERIFF OF GUILFOD COUNTY; RUSSELL ELIASON, Magistrate Judge; RICHARD S. GLASER, JR., Assistant United States Attorney; JAMES CRAVEN, III; RICHARD C. ERWIN, Judge; EPHRAIM VANDORIAN STANCIL, Government Witness; ANDREW NEWMAN RICHMOND, JR., Government Witness; W.R. MYERS, Special Agent SBI, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-602-2) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Lee Owens, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Owens v. Kowalski , No. CA-95-602-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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
S. 3267 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 410 Dakota 

Avenue South in Huron, South Dakota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Thomas Michael 

Martin Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT THOMAS MICHAEL MARTIN POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 410 Dakota Avenue South in Huron, South 

Dakota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘First Lieutenant 

Thomas Michael Martin Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

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

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Thomas Michael Martin Post Office 

Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Eddie LEVINE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Nos. 70-216, 70-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3448 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Director of the United States Holocaust 

Memorial Museum to support Holocaust education programs, and for other purposes. 

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

†S 3448 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Never Again Education 

3 Reauthorization Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

5 Section 4(a) of the Never Again Education Act (Pub6 lic Law 116–141; 134 Stat. 638) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2030’’. 

Passed the Senate July 9, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3448 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Director of the United States 

poses. caust education programs, and for other purHolocaust Memorial Museum to support Holo-
#### MAINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. William R. RASER, Appellee.

Nos. 69-1000, 70-62 and 70-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 27, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1970.

*164Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth and James F. Dougherty, II, Miami, for appellant.

Sams, Anderson, Alper & Spencer, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J„ and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellant, insurance company, suffered an adverse jury verdict and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appel-lee, its policyholder. These appeals are from (1) the final judgment, (2) the order taxing costs and (3) the order assessing attorney’s fees. We have consolidated the appeals for argument and disposition here. The appellee sued the appellant claiming under a disability income insurance policy issued to him. The appellant defended upon the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation by the appellee in that he had failed to reveal upon the application prior rejections for the same type of insurance. Other defenses were pleaded but the one set forth is the only one important to this decision.

Appellant has presented eight points on appeal. The first point urges error upon limitations imposed by the trial judge upon certain questions asked prospective jurors on voir dire examination. The second, third, fourth and fifth points urge error upon rulings in the admission or rejection of evidentiary items during the trial of the cause. Appellant’s points six and seven urge error upon the failure of the court to give requested instructions. Point eight urges that the trial court abused its discretion in fixing the amount of attorney’s fees awarded plaintiff’s attorney.

We have examined the record in the light of appellant’s points one through five inclusive and find that reversible error has not been demonstrated. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Ganey, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 576.

Appellant’s points six and seven contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying defendant’s requested jury instructions eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and eighteen. These requested instructions are not made a part of the record on appeal. We are therefore unable to determine if the court committed reversible error in refusing to give the requested instructions. Cf. Morgan v. Marshall, 78 Fla. 59, 82 So. 609 (1919); Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 97 So. 288 (1923).

The eighth point directed to the amount of the attorney’s fee allowed pursuant to § 627.0127, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., is also without merit. The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and heard the testimony of the expert witnesses offered. The amount of the fee is within the range of the expert testimony and is supported by the long and difficult trial, the testimony as to the time expended and the amount involved. City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 109.

Affirmed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3324 

To modify the penalties for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act of 1993. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Ms. HASSAN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To modify the penalties for violations of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1993. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deter Obnoxious, Ne5 farious, and Outrageous Telephone Calls Act of 2023’’ or 

6 the ‘‘DO NOT Call Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE 

8 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1993. 

9 (a) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3324 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 227 of the Commu2 nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is amended 

3 by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(k) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para6 graph (2), any person who willfully and knowingly 

7 violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more 

8 than 1 year, fined under title 18, United States 

9 Code, or both. 

10 ‘‘(2) AGGRAVATED OFFENSE.—Any person who 

11 willfully and knowingly violates this section shall be 

12 imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under 

13 title 18, United States Code, or both if— 

14 ‘‘(A) the person has previously been con15 victed under this subsection; 

16 ‘‘(B) the offense involved initiating more 

17 than— 

18 ‘‘(i) 100,000 calls in a 24-hour period; 

19 ‘‘(ii) 1,000,000 calls in a 30-day pe20 riod; or 

21 ‘‘(iii) 10,000,000 calls in a 1-year pe22 riod; 

23 ‘‘(C) the person committed the offense 

24 with the intent to use the calls in furtherance 

25 of a felony or conspiracy to commit a felony; or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3324 IS

1 ‘‘(D) the offense caused loss to 1 or more 

2 persons aggregating $5,000 or more in value 

3 during any 1-year period. 

4 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub5 section— 

6 ‘‘(A) the term ‘call’ includes a message or 

7 other communication; and 

8 ‘‘(B) the term ‘initiate’, with respect to a 

9 call, includes the act of sending, making, or 

10 transmitting a call, message, or other commu11 nication, as applicable.’’. 

12 (2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND13 MENT.—Section 227(e)(5)(B) of the Communica14 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(B)) is 

15 amended, in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘sec16 tion 501’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (k)’’. 

17 (b) INCREASED PENALTIES FOR PROVISION OF INAC18 CURATE CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.—Sec19 tion 227(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

20 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)) is amended— 

21 (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking 

22 ‘‘$10,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000’’; and 

23 (2) in subparagraph (B), in the first sentence, 

24 by striking ‘‘$10,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Hooker Furniture Corporation (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, E. Larry Ryder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: October 6, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ E. Larry Ryder                        
|                      |  |     |  | E. Larry Ryder                            
|                      |  |     |  | Executive Vice President - Finance and    
|                      |  |     |  | Administration and Chief Financial Officer