alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023117EN.01001201.xml

| 31.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/12

---

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

SA.102270

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 117/11)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17.6.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.102270 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Reintroduction of the COVID-19 scheme for the reduction of track access charges for rail freight and commercial rail passenger services |
| Legal basis | Decreto legge 27 gennaio 2022, no 4 ‘misure urgenti in materia di sostegno alle imprese ed agli operatori economici, di lavoro, salute e servizi territoriali, connesse all'emergenza da COVID-19, nonchè per il contenimento degli effetti economici degli aumenti dei prezzi nel settore elettrico’ (cosiddetto sostegni- ter) — articolo 25 ‘misure urgenti per il settore ferroviario’ |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Coordination of transport |
| Form of aid | Other |
| Budget | Overall budget: 130 000 000 EUR
  Annual budget: 10 000 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.3.2022 |
| Economic sectors | Freight rail transport, Other passenger land transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministero delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità sostenibili — Direzione Generale per il trasporto e le infrastrutture ferroviarie |
| Via Caraci 36 00157 Roma |

Date of adoption of the decision

17.6.2022

Aid number

SA.102270

Member State

Italy

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Reintroduction of the COVID-19 scheme for the reduction of track access charges for rail freight and commercial rail passenger services

Legal basis

Decreto legge 27 gennaio 2022, no 4 ‘misure urgenti in materia di sostegno alle imprese ed agli operatori economici, di lavoro, salute e servizi territoriali, connesse all'emergenza da COVID-19, nonchè per il contenimento degli effetti economici degli aumenti dei prezzi nel settore elettrico’ (cosiddetto sostegni- ter) — articolo 25 ‘misure urgenti per il settore ferroviario’

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Coordination of transport

Form of aid

Other

Budget

Overall budget: 130 000 000 EUR

Annual budget: 10 000 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.3.2022

Economic sectors

Freight rail transport, Other passenger land transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministero delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità sostenibili — Direzione Generale per il trasporto e le infrastrutture ferroviarie

Via Caraci 36 00157 Roma

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONEL CANTU LOPEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

J. F. SALAZAR, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-55676

D.C. No. CV-06-00839-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

 California state prisoner Leonel Cantu Lopez appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

FILED

JUN 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 1

decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole violated due

process.

2 07-55676

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Following an independent review of the record, see

1

Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the state

court’s conclusion that some evidence supports the Board’s decision was not

objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall,

No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010).

Cantu Lopez contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole

was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process

rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports

the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward, 2010 WL

1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010). Contrary to Cantu Lopez’s

contention, both static and dynamic factors support the Board’s determination. See

id. at *10. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2023283EN.01013001.xml

| 11.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/130 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/130

---

P9_TA(2023)0042

Authorising Poland to ratify the amendment to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2023 on the draft Council decision authorising Poland to ratify, in the interest of the European Union, the amendment to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea (10918/2022 — C9-0293/2022 — 2022/0177(NLE))

(Consent)

(2023/C 283/25)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (10918/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (10918/2022),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0293/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0293/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0007/2023), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0007/2023),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the authorisation of Poland to ratify the amendment to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE Jul y 24, 200 7 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JEAN IE MA RIE S EAL S

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham blen Coun ty No. 05CR035 Jam es Edw ard Beckner, Judge

No. E2006-01878-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Janu ary 8, 2008

D. KEL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J

. , co n cu rr i n g.

Iconcur in the results rea ched by the majority

as Iwould also rema

nd this case f

or a ne w tr ia l. I wr ite se pa

rate ly to n ote the mann e r i n w hic h I be lie ve that th e pr op os e d te sti mony of nurs e Tere sa Hudg ens—name ly , t h at t h e d ef en d an tco n t ac t edHu d gen s v i a t el ep h o n e a n d t o l d Hudgens that the victim threate ned to kill the defe ndant—was a dmissibl e.
As noted by

the majority
, ev idence that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsa y may be admitted in cer

tain circ umstances if the evidenc e is ne cessa ry for the defe ndant to pr esent a defe nse. State v. Flood, 219 S.W .3d 307, 316-17 (Te nn. 2007). The thr ee F lood fac tors wer e all met her e. Hudg ens’ pr oposed t estimony and the note H udg ens made when the de fenda nt contacte d her w ere

c ri tic a l to th e defens e . T he pr os e c uti on c ha lle ng e d th e de fe nd ant’ s c re dib ili ty duri ngc ro ssexamination. The prosec utor t o l d t h e def endant, “ It’s very

important that y ou be believe d,” and Hudg ens’ testimony

would have aided the jury in determining whether

the def endant wa s cre dible. Hudg ens’ testimony

did bear sufficie nt indicia of re liability in that the nurse kept a wr itten note made

c on te mpor aneo us ly

to th e def end ant ’s s tat eme nt , an d t he d efen dan t w as w il li ng to intr od uc e tha t no te into evidence . Finally , the intere st served by excluding the nur se’s testim o n y d i d not justi fy

e xclu sio n. Th e Rul e s o f E vid e nc e wo uld have pe rm itt e d th e nu

rs e ’s te sti mony to b e a dmi tte d a s a prior con s istent statement had the testimony been pr esente d afte r the de fenda nt’s cre dibilit y

was attacke d. See S t at e v. Meeks, 867 S.W .2d 361, 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) . I n this case, the defe nse counse l may

well have been dissuade d from re callingHudg ens, who t es t i fi ed prior to the defe ndant, af

ter the de fenda

nt’s cre dibilit y had been attacked, in light of the trial court’s state ment to defe nse counse l that “y ou know, as a lawy er, or y ou should know, what y ou’re able to pre sent and what you can’ t present, a

nd the laws of e vidence are clea r and w ell define d.”

I n lig ht of the se re a so ns , Iwo uld have c on c lud e d th a t H ud g e ns ’ t e sti mony wa s a dmi ssi ble ha d it be e n pro pe rl y pr e se nte d. Th e re fo re , I joi n in the ma jor ity ’s c on c lus ion

re mand ingthi s c a se-2-

to t he Cr imi na l Co ur

t f or Ha mbl e n Co un ty

fo r a ne w tri a l.

_______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE
Docket Number FAA-2012-0719
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID MCKINNEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 265 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID MCKINNEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 266 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2022395EN.01000601.xml

| 14.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/6

---

Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(2022/C 395/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Ahmad Vahidi (no. 13), person appearing in Annex II, Part I, to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX, Part I, to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

The Council intends to include your name in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP (3) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran and in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.

The person concerned is hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for his designation by 25 October 2022, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

I, Robert
J. Krist, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: July 30, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert J. Krist    
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Robert J. Krist        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the
Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
# C_2022115EN.01000201.xml

| 11.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10605 – MACQUARIE REAL ESTATE / CPG VAN OOSTROM BEHEER / EDGE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 115/02)

On 4 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10605. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10605. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 23

                    AUDITOR'S CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULES




Board of Directors and
Stockholders
Photo Control Corporation



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Photo Control Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1995, of
our report, dated January 30, 1996, appearing in the Company's 1995 Annual
Report to Shareholders. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
such report in the registration statements on Form S-8 for the Photo Control
Stock Option Plan.

In the course of our audit of the financial statements referred to in our
report, dated January 30, 1996, included in the Company's 1995 Annual Report to
Shareholders, we also audited the supporting schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) of
this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In our opinion, the schedule, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.


                                             Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP



January 30, 1996
Minneapolis, Minnesota
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6903

GLENDA MAY DEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-683-3) Submitted: August 12, 1997 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenda May Deal, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Glenda Deal appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Deal's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Deal that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Deal failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate r eview. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Deal has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3032 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal a certain reporting 

requirement of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2015 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. HURT of Virginia) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal 

a certain reporting requirement of the Securities and 

Exchange Commission. 

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 ‘‘Securities and Ex5 change Commission Reporting Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

7 Paragraph (6) of section 21(h) of the Securities Ex8 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(h)) is repealed. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


     Set forth below is a list of certain subsidiaries of the Company at April
1, 2000. All of the voting securities of each named subsidiary are owned by the
Company or by another subsidiary of the Company.

SUBSIDIARIES

     Eckerd Corporation (Delaware)
     J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. (Delaware)
     J. C. Penney Funding Corporation (Delaware)
     J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company (Vermont)
     J. C. Penney Properties, Inc. (Delaware)
     JCP Realty, Inc. (Delaware)
     JCP Receivables, Inc. (Delaware)
     Thrift Drug, Inc. (Delaware)

     Separate financial statements are filed for J. C. Penney Funding
Corporation, which is a consolidated subsidiary, in a separate Annual Report on
Form 10-K.

     The names of other subsidiaries have been omitted because these unnamed
subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, do not
constitute a significant subsidiary.
# C_2022350EN.01000401.xml

| 13.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2022/C 350/04)

Pursuant to Article 9(1), point (a), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 210

4202 31 00

to Articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag

4202 39 00

The following text is inserted after the existing text:

‘These subheadings also do not include articles used as protective covers for charging cases for wireless headphones. The covers are shaped to protect the wireless charging case from outside and are sold in many different designs (in one piece or in two pieces, of different material and colours, patterned, with images or text, may be combined with a snap hook etc.). These covers for charging cases for wireless headphones are to be classified according to the constituent material.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2022210EN.01002701.xml

| 25.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/27

---

Special report No 11/2022

‘Protecting the EU budget – Better use of blacklisting needed’

(2022/C 210/08)

The European Court of Auditors has published its Special report No 11/2022: ‘Protecting the EU budget – Better use of blacklisting needed’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61175

---