alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022450EN.01001101.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 450/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 450/11

---

Communication from the State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2022/C 450/08)

The State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in blocks M10 and M11 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling). Block M10 covers an area of 195 km2, and block M11 an area of 28 km2.

With reference to the Directive referred to in the preamble and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet), the State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in blocks M10 and M11 of the Dutch continental shelf.

The State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1) and (2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act.

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:

Email: mijnbouwvergunningen@minezk.nl

The State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

attn.: Mr J. L. Rosch, Directorate for the Transition in the Use of Deep Underground Resources

| Bezuidenhoutseweg 73 |
| --- |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| THE NETHERLANDS |

Bezuidenhoutseweg 73

Postbus 20401

2500 EK Den Haag

THE NETHERLANDS

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will in principle be taken not later than 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling the MABEL office on the following telephone number: +31 703796970.

Tel. +31 703796970.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3007 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the display of the 

Confederate battle flag in national cemeteries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2015 

Mr. GALLEGO (for himself, Ms. LEE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. 

CUMMINGS, Mr. WALZ, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. SERRANO, 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mr. CLAY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the 

display of the Confederate battle flag in national cemeteries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON DISPLAY OF CONFEDERATE 

4 BATTLE FLAG IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) The Confederate battle flag is a potent re7 minder of a deeply divisive period of our Nation’s 

8 history, recalling the human suffering of slavery and 

9 Jim Crow. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3007 IH

1 (2) For millions of Americans, including vet2 erans and their families, the Confederate battle flag 

3 is a symbol of intolerance, injustice, and inequality. 

4 (3) Flying the Confederate battle flag, origi5 nally the banner of forces fighting the armies of the 

6 United States, is offensive and inappropriate at 

7 cemeteries and other sites dedicated to the memory 

8 of America’s courageous war dead. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION.—Chapter 24 of title 38, United 

10 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing new section: 

12 ‘‘§ 2415. Prohibition on display of Confederate battle 

13 flag 

14 ‘‘The Secretary shall prohibit the display of the Con15 federate battle flag in any national cemetery under the 

16 control of the National Cemetery Administration.’’. 

17 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

18 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

19 at the end the following new item: 

‘‘2415. Prohibition on display of Confederate battle flag.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# L_2009034EN.01S00301.xml

| 4.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 34/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 34/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20

- 0784 Filed October 21, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF E.W., Minor Child, S.S., Mother, Appellant.

_________________________________ _______________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox , District
Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child

. AFFIRMED.

Adam Hanson of Law Office of Adam Hanson, Des Moines, for appellant
mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Toby J. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. ConGarry D. Williams of Juvenile Public Defender , Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Consider ed by Tabor, P.J. , and Mullins and Greer, JJ.2

MULLINS , Judge

. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child

. 1 The mother argues that the district court erred in terminating her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020) because (1) the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to her care and (2) options other than termination were not explored. We review terminations of parental rights de novo. In re L.T. , 924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019). “Our primary concern is the best interests of the child.” In re J.E. , 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
W e deem the mother’s arguments waived for failure to cite to legal authority pursuant to Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.201(1)(d) , .903(2)(g)(3), and
.1401

- Form 5. 2 Rule 6.1401

- Form 5 specifically directs the brief to “include supporting legal authori ty for each issue raised, including authority contrary to [the] case, if known.” The brief references only the section cited for termination. We affirm the juvenile court

. AFFIRMED.

1 The father’s parental rights were also term inated. He does not appeal. 2 Even if legal authority had been cited, we would affirm the district court. The mother’s initial argument focuses on her allegedly stable housing and employment. However, our review of the record reveals the mother’s history of housing instability, including frequent relocations to live with relatives in Maryland resulting in ext ended periods of no contact with the child, and admitted financial instability. The mother also insisted her family in Maryland would create a safe and stable home for the child. However, the Iowa Department of Human Services caseworker assigned to this family testified at the termination trial that the maternal aunt in Maryland had not provided all the information necessary to complete the home study. We agree with the district court that termination of parental rights is in this child’s best interests.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elko Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matt Wayrynen, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of July, 2007.


/s/ Matt Wayrynen
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Energy Conservation Standards 

Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and 

ANOPR Public Meeting

Rulemaking Overview 

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable E

U.S. Department of Energy

September 30, 2004

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
Purpose of the Public Meetin

 To present methodologies and characterize result

date

 To discuss specific issues related to each analysi To seek input from attendees on methodologies, a

data sources

 To describe upcoming analyses and next steps

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) dir

seven factors when setting energy conservat

Factor Ana

1. Economic impact on consumers 

and manufacturers

Life-cycle cost analyManufacturer impact 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost analy3. Total projected energy savings National impact anal4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis

Engineering analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of 

competition

Manufacturer impact 

6. Need for national energy 

conservation

National impact anal

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant

Environmental assesUtility impact analysEmployment impact 

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: 

Framework

Document ANOPR NOPR

Fin

al

Rule

Effectiv

Date

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analyses

Market & Technology Assessment

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
Steps in the Standards Rulemaking

Framework

Document ANOPR NOPR

Fin

al

R

ule

Effect

Date

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

TrialStandardLevels

Revise ANOPR Analyses

Employment

Impact 

Analysis

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
Issues for Public Comment

1. Approaches to Analyses for Split 

Systems, Heat Pumps, and Niche Equipment

2. Alternative Refrigerant Analysis3. Candidate Standards Levels4. Design Option Analysis and Maximum 

Energy Efficiency Levels

5. Industrial Buildings6. Economizer Performance7. Fan Energy Consumption8. Equipment Markups9. Hourly Based Electricity Prices10. Forecasts of Electricity Prices11. Equipment Lifetime12. Maximum Market Share of Commercial 

Unitary Air Conditioning Equipment

13. Future Building T

Commercial Unit

14. Customer Sub-G15. Effective Date of 

Phaseout Date o

16. Independent Exp

a. Sample of Bub. BLAST and C

Use

c. Supply Fan End. Incremental M

17. Effect of Income 

Cost

18. Technologies tha

Load Performanc

19. Environmental A20. Rebound Effect

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
Comments from Participants

 Participants are invited to provide summary comm

statements

 Participants are invited to raise additional issues 

today

 ANOPR comment period open through November 

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25G
# C_2023087EN.01000101.xml

| 9.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10749 – PAI PARTNERS / THE CARLYLE GROUP / THERAMEX)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 87/01)

On 12 July 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 32022M10749 . 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 32022M10749 . EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### Arrow, Appellee, *v.*Miller, Appellant.

(No. *29010*

Decided May 13, 1942.)

*Mr. C. James Arrow, in propria persona.*

*Messrs. Claymen & daymen,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Turner, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., not participating.
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 6 : Certified Excerpts from the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ Public

Hearing for Rules 310, 310.01 and Dust Control Permit Application Package
**Exhibit (23)**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

The Board of Directors 

Potlatch Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(Nos. 333-17145, 333-42808, 33-54515, 333-28079, 333-74956, 333-12017, and 333-42806) on Form S-8 of Potlatch Corporation of our reports dated February 18, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Potlatch Corporation andconsolidated subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, cash flows and stockholders’ equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2004, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Potlatch Corporation. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Portland, Oregon 

February 18, 2005
aon9N Ia. amA. 

*-RNKY OENERAL 

June 24, 1975 

The Honorable Tom Hanna Opinion No. H-632 

Criminal District Attorney Ra: Authority of a municipal utility 

Jefferson County 

P. 0. Box 2553 

district to contract Hiith a ,priVite 

Beaumont, Texas 77704 

party to haul garbage and to charge 

the party therefor 

Dear Mr. Hanna: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of a municipal 

utility district to contract with a private party to haul garbage and to charge the 

party therefor. We assume, of course that this service will be offered to all 

persons similarly situated. 

A municipal utility district is empowered by section 54. 201(b) of the 

Texas Water Code: 

to purchase, construct, acquire, own, 

operate, maintain, repair, improve, 

or extend insfde and outside its 

boundaries any and all works, improvements, facilities, plants, equipment, 

and appliances necessary to accomplish 

the purposes of its creation, including 

all works, improvements, facilities, 

plants, equipment, and appliances incident, helpful, or necessary to: 

. . . . 

(2) collect, transport, process, dispose of, 

and control all domestic, industrial, or 

communal wastes whether in fluid, solid, or 

composite state . . . 

In section 54.203, a district is authorized to: 

purchase, construct, acquire, own, 

operate, maintain, repair, improve, 

and extend a solid waste collection and 

disposal system inside and outside the 

district and make proper charges for it, 
-- 

The Honorable Tom Hanna - Page 2 (H-632) 

Finally, section 54.204(a) provides that: 

[a] district may adopt and enforce all 

necessary charges, fees, or rentals, 

in addition to taxes, for providing any 

district facilities or service. 

The hauling and disposal of garbage is a permissible function of a 

municipal utility district by virtue of sections 54. 201(b) and 54.203. The 

district may make necessary charges for this service pursuant to sections 

54.203 and 54.204(a). It is thus our opinion that a municipal utility district 

may contract with a private party to haul garbage and may charge the party 

therefor. 

SUMMARY 

A municipal utility district is authorized to contract with a private 

party to haul garbage ,and to charge the party therefor. 

Very truly yours, 

Opinion Committee 

pm 2793
Exhibit 15



                                     Re: Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
                                        (File No. 0-20707)
                                         Registrations on Form S-3


We are aware that our report dated August 6, 2004 on our review of interim
financial information of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the three and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 and included in the Partnership's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended, is incorporated by
reference in the registration statement on Form S-3/A related to the Shelf
Registration filed on October 10, 2003 (File No. 333-105329). Pursuant to Rule
436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by us within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




                                             /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
August 6, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4719
In Re: TERRY W. STEWART, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-11) Submitted: December 14, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry W. Stewart, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Terry W. Stewart has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that this court compel the district court judge in his case to recuse himself on account of bias. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Stewart has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s petition for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1878

_____________________________
M IGUEL A. T IRADO , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Cour t for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

. November 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OBERTS and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R . App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Miguel A. Tirado, Jr., pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# Official Journal C 463I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 463I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6416 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 463I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6416 November 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 463 I/01 | Appointment of a Hearing Officer in certain competition proceedings | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 463 I/01

Appointment of a Hearing Officer in certain competition proceedings

1

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 463/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 463/1

---

Appointment of a Hearing Officer in certain competition proceedings

(2021/C 463 I/01)

Following the transfer of Mr Wouter WILS, the Commission has appointed Mr Eric GIPPINI FOURNIER to the post of Hearing Officer with effect as from 1 December 2021, in accordance with the Decision of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

---
EXHIBIT 11

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE




                                               DECEMBER 31
                                               -----------
                                   1997            1996           1995
                                   ----            ----           ----

NET INCOME (LOSS)               (2,259,251)     $   68,279     $ (581,864)


WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF
COMMON SHARES
OUTSTANDING                      1,604,163       1,608,163      1,550,685
                                ----------      ----------     ----------


BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS)
PER COMMON                      $    (1.41)     $      .04     $     (.37)
                                ==========      ==========     ==========


For the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995 there was no dilutive
effect for stock options.

CRJ\EXHIB11