alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01002401.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/24

---

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-222/08)

(2008/C 209/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by virtue of the transposition into national law of the provisions on the costing and financing of universal service obligations, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1), 13(1), and Annex IV, part A, of Directive 2002/22/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by virtue of the transposition into national law of the provisions on the costing and financing of universal service obligations, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1), 13(1), and Annex IV, part A, of Directive 2002/22/EC;

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The objective of Directive 2002/22 is, inter alia, to define the situations in which the market does not satisfactorily meet the needs of end-users and the directive contains provisions regarding the availability of the universal service. Article 12(1) of the directive provides that where national regulatory authorities consider that the provision of universal service may represent an unfair burden on undertakings designated to provide universal service, they are to calculate the net costs of its provision in the manner set out in that article. Annex IV, part A, contains provisions concerning the calculation of the net costs. Article 13(1) provides that where, on the basis of the net cost calculation referred to in Article 12, national regulatory authorities find that an undertaking is subject to an unfair burden, the Member States are, upon request from a designated undertaking, to decide to introduce a compensation mechanism.

According to the Commission, Belgium has not correctly transposed the provisions of Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Annex IV, part A, of the directive. The Belgian legislation provides for no assessment of the question whether the provision of social tariffs in the course of performing the universal service represents an unfair burden for the undertakings concerned. Furthermore the Belgian legislation does not satisfy the requirement concerning the costing of net costs set out more particularly in the last section of Annex IV, part A, to the directive.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of IVI Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: November 12, 2004                    /s/ Nyhl Henson
                                           -------------------------
                                           Nyhl Henson, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4646 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4646

                     One Hundred Fifteenth 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 eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  1900 Corporate Drive in Birmingham, Alabama, as the ``Lance Corporal 
              Thomas E. Rivers, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL THOMAS E. RIVERS, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1900 Corporate Drive in Birmingham, Alabama, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lance Corporal Thomas E. Rivers, Jr. 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 ``Lance 
Corporal Thomas E. Rivers, Jr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

AGE Logic, Inc.
FTP Software, Inc.
Maximum Information, Inc.
NetManage (Barbados) Ltd.
NetManage Benelux bvba (Belgium)
NetManage Japan K.K. (Japan)
NetManage, Ltd. (Haifa, Israel)
NetManage S.A. (France)
NetManage Software GmbH (Germany)
NetManage Italia srl (Italy)
NetManage UK Ltd. (England)
NetSoft
Network International Ltd. (England)
Network Software Associates, Inc.
NY NetManage (Yerushalayim), Ltd. (Jerusalem, Israel)
Relay Technology, Inc.
Simware Inc.
Syzygy Communications, Inc.
U.S. Computer Acquisition Corporation
Wall Data Incorporated
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4753 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System to provide a written report, 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 

•HR 4753 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Reserve Su3 pervision Testimony Clarification Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. VICE CHAIRMAN FOR SUPERVISION REPORT RE5 QUIREMENT. 

6 Paragraph (12) of section 10 of the Federal Reserve 

7 Act (12 U.S.C. 247b) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating such paragraph as para9 graph (11); and 

10 (2) in such paragraph— 

11 (A) by striking ‘‘shall appear’’ and insert12 ing ‘‘shall provide written testimony and ap13 pear’’; and 

14 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘If, at the time of any appearance described in 

16 this paragraph, the position of Vice Chairman 

17 for Supervision is vacant, the Chairman or their 

18 designee shall appear instead and provide the 

19 required written testimony.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4753 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the 

vide a written report, and for other purposes. Governors of the Federal Reserve System to proVice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90406-90407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft 
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved 
information collection. The information collected is used by the FAA to 
register aircraft or hold an aircraft in trust. The information 
required to register an prove ownership of an aircraft is required by 
any person wishing to register an aircraft.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda 
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at: 
Ronda.Thompson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0042.
    Title: Aircraft Registration.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 7480-1.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Public Law 103-272 states that all aircraft must be 
registered before they may be flown. It sets forth registration 
eligibility requirements and provides for application for registration 
as well as suspension and/or revocation of registration. The 
information collected is used by the FAA to register an aircraft or 
hold an aircraft in trust.

[[Page 90407]]

The information requested is required to register and prove ownership.
    Respondents: Approximately 146,757 registrants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 32 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 103,982 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 8, 2016.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and 
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-30011 Filed 12-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# Vinton - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission Executive Director John Hemmings Email jh&#101;&#109;&#109;&#x69;&#x6e;&#x67;&#x73;&#x40;ov&#114;&#100;&#99;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. A-12019.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 9, 1954.

*477Elmore A. Page, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty, Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Art Williams was charged by information filed in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County with .the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was tried before the court, found guilty and penalty was assessed at imprisonment in the county jail of Tulsa County for thirty days, and a fine of $50.

The record discloses but one ground of error urged in the trial court. Counsel did not file a formal motion to suppress, but when the assistant county attorney, in answer to an inquiry from counsel for defendant as to whether he was ready for trial, answered in the affirmative, he thereupon interposed an objection to the introduction of any evidence on the ground of the invalidity of the affidavit for search warrant, and the search warrant, and introduced evidence in an effort to show that the magistrate issuing the search warrant did not interrogate the officer signing the affidavit for search warrant concerning the allegations in the affidavit.

The evidence disclosed that the officer signed the affidavit and that the magistrate did witness the signature. The affidavit was properly acknowledged.

The affidavit for search warrant and the search warrant were by counsel for defendant offered in evidence in support of the objection interposed. The court and counsel for the defendant thereafter treated the proceedings as a motion to suppress the evidence. The court overruled the motion to suppress. A careful examination of the affidavit for search warrant and the search warrant issued disclose that said instruments are in proper form, and as required by law.

The State introduced evidence showing that two sheriff’s deputies armed with a search warrant for the search of a barber shop located at 222 East Second Street, Tulsa, together with a store room directly behind the shop on the same floor, found the defendant in front of the shop and that he invited them in and they told him their business and one of the officers had the search warrant in his hand and the defendant started for the back room and said: “Come right on back here, boys”, but the officer asked him to first take the warrant, which he did. Thereafter defendant produced some keys and unlocked a cupboard and the officers took possession of twenty half pints of Hill *S¿*Hill, sixteen half pints of Cascade, and seven half pints of Old Forrester, all tax-paid whiskey.

The defendant did not testify, and did not offer any evidence on trial.

The defendant has filed no brief. It is apparent that the appeal has been for the purpose of putting off the day of reckoning.

The judgment of the court of common pleas of Tulsa County is in all things affirmed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL OP-OFA-103] 

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or                     *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed December 18, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through December 22, 2023 10 a.m. EST 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

## Notice

                     Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxapps.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-II/​public/​action/​eis/​search.*

*EIS No. 20230182, Final, BLM, PRO, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Addressing Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides, Review Period Ends:*                     01/29/2024, Contact: Seth Flanigan 208-373-4094.                 

Dated: December 22, 2023. 

Julie Smith,

Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2023-28749 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
# C_2008327EN.01004002.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/40

---

Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY)

(Case T-476/08)

(2008/C 327/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medai-Saturn-Holding GmbH (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by K. Lewinsky, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 in appeal proceedings R 0591/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 in appeal proceedings R 0591/2008-4; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Best Buy’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42 (No 5 189 550).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for has the necessary minimum distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Madison BancShares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Robert B. McGivney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                          
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert B. McGivney                                   
|                      |  |     |  | Robert B. McGivney, President and Chief Executive
Officer
EXHIBIT 32
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, in his capacity as an officer of the BFA Liquidation Trust (the "TRUST"),
that, to his knowledge:

     (a)    the  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q of the  Trust  for the  fiscal
            quarter  ended  June 30,  2004 as  filed  with  the  Securities  and
            Exchange   Commission  (the  "REPORT"),   fully  complies  with  the
            requirements  of Section  13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
            1934; and

     (b)    the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Trust.

Date: August 12, 2004               By:    /s/ Clifton R. Jessup, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Clifton R. Jessup, Jr.
                                    Title: Liquidating Trustee

Date: August 12, 2004               By:    /s/ Mark A. Roberts
                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Mark A. Roberts
                                    Title: Assistant to the Liquidating Trustee

This certification is not deemed to be "filed" for purposes of section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise  subject to the liability of that
section.  This  certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.


                                     - 19 -
exv10w31



 








Exhibit 10.31




Description of Performance Based Compensation Plan Bonus Criteria for Fiscal Year 2005




The following executive officers of ESS Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) are participants in the
Company’s Performance Based Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for fiscal year 2005: Fred S.L. Chan,
Chairman; Robert L. Blair, President and Chief Executive Officer; and James B. Boyd, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
President. On March 31, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board
of Directors of the Company (the “Compensation Committee”) approved performance criteria applicable
to the payment of bonuses for fiscal year 2005 under the Plan.



The fiscal year 2005 performance criteria approved by the Compensation Committee focus primarily on
strategic corporate objectives that are designed to elicit performance critical to the short-term and long-term
success of the Company. In particular, the approved performance criteria include goals related to
the design and implementation of market and product strategies (including DVD, cameraphone and
analog products), plans and roadmaps, internal processes, and corporate compliance and operational
objectives. Each executive’s primary areas of responsibility vary within the performance criteria
and not every executive is allocated responsibility for each criteria. Accordingly, the
Compensation Committee has determined the applicability of each criteria and the weighing of the
respective criteria for each executive.



Achievement of all of the performance objectives could result in maximum bonuses under the Plan of
200% of their annual base salary for each of Messrs. Chan and Blair, and 100% of his annual base
salary for Mr. Boyd. The earned bonus for each executive shall be subject to downward (but not
upward) discretionary adjustments, if any, as determined by the Compensation Committee. The
Compensation Committee will determine whether the performance objectives were reached after the end
of the Company’s fiscal year 2005, and any bonus payments will be made pursuant to the Plan no
later than March 15, 2006.