alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015062EN.01001101.xml

| 20.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/11

---

Information notice on questions addressed to the Commission regarding the decision on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) for support to the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station

(2015/C 62/09)

According to Article 194 of the TFEU, Member States are free to determine their energy mix. The United Kingdom has decided to promote nuclear energy and this decision is within its national competence. However, when public money is spent to support companies the Commission has the duty to verify that this is done in line with the EU State aid rules. Its role is to ensure that any State aid provided is necessary, proportionate and not distortive of competition or trade between Member States.

The Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure on this measure in December 2013, expressing doubts on the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market based on the information available at that time. The opening decision aimed at ensuring that the final assessment would be well-grounded in facts and analysis and would take into account the views of all interested parties.

As part of the investigation procedure, the Commission received extensive information and submissions from interested parties and the United Kingdom authorities. These new elements, together with the intense and comprehensive scrutiny process conducted by the Commission, have informed the Commission’s assessment. In particular, the investigation showed that the support addresses a genuine market failure, dispelling the Commission’s initial doubts. It also resulted in substantial changes to the level of support compared to the original notification.

On this basis, the Commission adopted the final decision on this measure on 8 October 2014. It found that the modified plans of the United Kingdom to support the investment in a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C were compatible with EU State aid rules.

The public version of the decision has now been published on DG Competition’s website (1) Issues such as the proportionality of the aid and its impact on the deployment of alternative technologies, including renewable energy technologies, are discussed at length in the decision.

1

---

(1)  At the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_34947

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7687 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PETER PAUL, a/k/a Peter Paul Alexander, a/k/a

Sluggie, a/k/a Peter P. Alexander; a/k/a Mark

Eric Green; a/k/a Paul Eustance; a/k/a Derrick

Anderson, a/k/a Mark Harris,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (3:95-cr-00104-REP; 3:06-cv-00587-REP)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Paul, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Peter Paul seeks to appeal the district court’s order

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong

and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is

likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Paul has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.

Additionally, we construe Paul’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
- 3 -

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Paul’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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.

DISMISSED
#### Robert Harold GRANTHAM, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 3, 1972.

Robert Harold Grantham, pro se.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

MANN, Judge.

Grantham’s application for delayed 'appellate review by habeas corpus pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239, states that the trial judge did not advise him of his right to appointed counsel for appeal if he were indigent. He states that his court-appointed counsel informed him that he would prosecute an appeal if Grantham could raise the funds, but that he could not and was deprived of his right to appeal.

The state contends that Nichols v. Wainwright, Fla.App.2d 1971, 243 So.2d 430, requires denial of the petition for failure of the petitioner to take any affirmative action toward an appeal. While it is artlessly pleaded, as we might expect, the import of Grantham’s charge is that he wanted to appeal, couldn’t afford to pay a lawyer and was misinformed that his right to appeal depended on his having funds. The court reporter having certified that there is not available a transcript of the sentencing, we accordingly appoint the Honorable Neil C. McMullen, Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, as Commissioner for the taking of testimony relative to the merits of Grantham’s petition.

HOBSON, A’. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
|          
|----------
|EXHIBIT 21

|
|

| | Subsidiaries of U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.
       For Year Ended December 31, 2004
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                      
| | U.S. Xpress, Inc., a Nevada corporation                                              
| | U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc., a Tennessee corporation                                   
| | Xpress Global Systems, Inc., a Georgia corporation                                   
| | Xpress Company Store, Inc., a Tennessee corporation                                  
| | Xpress Air, Inc., a Tennessee corporation                                            
| | Xpress Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation                                          
| | Xpress Colorado, Inc., a Georgia corporation                                         
| | Xpress Nebraska, Inc., a Nebraska corporation                                        
| | Colton Xpress, LLC, a California corporation                                         
| | Xpress Receivables, LLC, a Nevada corporation                                        
| | Cargo Movement Corp., a Nevada corporation                                           

---
# C_2015367EN.01001203.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/12

---

EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/46)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.eda.europa.eu/Aboutus/who-we-are/Finance

---
# C_2014019EN.01003601.xml

| 22.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7121 — E.ON Sverige/SEAS-NVE Holding/E.ON Vind Sverige)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 19/07

On 19 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7121. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7121. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
** **
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

|                              |                                                            |                                    |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                       |                               |
| Date:              March 13, 2006 | By:                                                   | /s/ L.              Michael Cutrer |
|                              | L.              Michael Cutrer                                  |
|                              | President              and              Chief Executive Officer |
|                              |                                                                            |                                                 |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                                       |                                            |
| Date:              March 13, 2006 | By:                                                                   | /s/ James              W.              Klingler |
|                              | James              W. Klingler                                                  |
|                              | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


    We consent to the use in this Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
No. 333-40500 of Elastic Networks Inc. of our report dated June 16, 2000
(August 4, 2000 as to Note 15), appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of
such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Selected Historical Financial Information" and "Experts" in such Prospectus.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
August 15, 2000
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

 *** The Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge

for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ZACHARY BECK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30251

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05553-RJB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2012**

Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and TUCKER, District

Judge.*** 

FILED

DEC 07 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 2

Defendant Zachary Beck appeals his conviction and his sentence after a

bench trial on the basis that his waiver of his jury-trial right was not knowing,

voluntary, or intelligent. Beck also appeals his conviction for conspiracy to violate

civil rights on the ground that the government failed to prove an agreement to

violate the victim’s civil rights. We affirm.

Beck’s jury-trial waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The district

court conducted an “in-depth” colloquy with Beck that adequately addressed the

four elements of his jury-trial right, including his right to personally participate in

jury selection. United States v. Christensen, 18 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 1994); see

United States v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1985).

Sufficient evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that Beck

conspired to violate the victim’s civil rights, including strong circumstantial

evidence that Beck and his associates “acted with a common goal” in attacking the

victim. United States v. Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3541

To provide for the duty-free entry of methanol produced aboard United

States vessels on the high seas or in foreign waters.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 18, 1993

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. MOAKLEY) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the duty-free entry of methanol produced

aboard United States vessels on the high seas or in

foreign waters.

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

3 SECTION 1. METHANOL PRODUCED ABOARD UNITED

4 STATES VESSELS.

5 Chapter 29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

6 United States is amended by inserting in numerical order

7 the following new subheading:

‘‘ 2905.11.15 Produced from natural gas

aboard a vessel of the United States on the high seas

or in foreign waters ............ Free Free

’’.
2

•HR 3541 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies to goods

3 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

4 on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment

5 of this Act.

Æ
#### Carol FENTON, Appellant, v. Jerrie KROOP, d/b/a Morris Kroop Realtors, Appellee.

No. 72-847.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

Brian R. Hersh, Miami, for appellant.

Kwitney & Kroop, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pedrick v. Vidal, 95 Fla. 952, 116 So. 857; Lipken v. Bonita Garden Apartments, Inc., Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 623.
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3579

To renew and extend patents relating to certain devices that aid in the

acceleration of bodily tissue healing and the reduction of pain.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To renew and extend patents relating to certain devices

that aid in the acceleration of bodily tissue healing and

the reduction of pain.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PATENT.

4 The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Com5 missioner of Patents and Trademarks, shall, when the pat6 ent numbered 4,226,246 (relating to an apparatus for

7 maintaining the negative potential of human, animal, and

8 plant cells) expires, extend the patent, with all the rights

9 pertaining thereto, for a period of 10 years beginning on

10 the date of the patent’s expiration.
2

•HR 3579 IH

1 SEC. 2. RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF PATENTS.

2 (a) RENEWAL AND EXTENSION.—The Secretary of

3 Commerce, acting through the Commissioner of Patents,

4 shall renew and extend each of the patents described in

5 subsection (b), with all the rights pertaining thereto, for

6 a period of 10 years beginning on the date of the patent’s

7 renewal and extension. The Secretary shall take the ac8 tions required by this section as soon as possible, but not

9 later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this

10 Act.

11 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PATENTS.—Subsection (a) shall

12 apply to the patents bearing the following numbers:

13 (1) 3,670,737 (relating to an ultra-short wave

14 athermapeutic (non-thermal pulsed high-peak high15 frequency electromagnetic energy) apparatus).

16 (2) 3,566,877 (relating to an electrotherma17 peutic apparatus and treatment head, and method

18 for tuning the treatment head).

19 (3) 3,464,010 (relating to a power meter for an

20 athermapeutic apparatus).

21 (4) 3,181,535 (relating to an athermapeutic ap22 paratus).

23 (5) 3,043,310 (relating to a treatment head for

24 an athermapeutic apparatus).

25 (c) INTERVENING RIGHTS.—The renewal and exten26 sion of the patents described in subsection (b) shall not
3

•HR 3579 IH

1 result in infringement of any of the patents on account

2 of any use of the subject matter of the patent, or substan3 tial preparation for such use, that began after the patent

4 expired but before the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Harold F. HARPER, Appellant, v. Bill STEWART, d/b/a Bill Stewart Electric Company, and Bill Stewart Electric Company, Appellees.

No. 72-1055.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 20, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2015113EN.01000201.xml

| 8.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/2

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran

(2015/C 113/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/555 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/548 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 should continue to apply to those persons.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 14 February 2016, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, in accordance with Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, of the list of designated persons.

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

1

(2)  OJ L 92, 8.4.2015, p. 91.

2

(3)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 92, 8.4.2015, p. 1.

4

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    14368
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (615)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          586097
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6108)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  617787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           155048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     353404
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      109234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    617687
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17455
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8488
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8488
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>