alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022199EN.01000901.xml

| 17.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/9

---

STATE AID – GERMANY

State aid SA.53625 (2021/C) – Lignite phase-out

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 199/08)

On 27 January 2022, the Commission adopted the EU Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy 2022 (‘CEEAG’) (1). According to point 466 of those guidelines, the Commission will apply CEEAG to assess the compatibility of all notifiable aid for climate, environmental protection and energy awarded or intended to be awarded from 27 January 2022.

On 2 March 2021, the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in case SA.53625 (2). In light of the above, the Commission invites comments, among other things, on the applicability and application of CEEAG and, where relevant, on the compatibility grounds set out in those guidelines, including in Section 3 and Section 4.12 thereof, in relation to the measure in respect of which the Commission has initiated the above-mentioned pending formal investigation. The Member State concerned and interested parties may submit their comments on that measure within 20 working days from the date of publication of this notice to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General for Competition |
| State aid Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate General for Competition

State aid Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22961242

Email: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Interested parties’ comments will be communicated to the Member State concerned in the above-mentioned pending formal investigation. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing when submitting the comments, stating the reasons for the request.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 18.2.2022, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 177, 7.5.2021, p. 50.

---
# Official Journal L 248/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 248 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5915 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 248

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5915 September 2016

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2016/1622 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2016/1622 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources (as indicated in the annex to the executability letter dated 28 October 2015).

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMEL RASHEED HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00009-jlk) Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 21, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Court. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. I. D. Walton Caudill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jamel Rasheed Harris was found guilty of aiding and abetting (1) the p ossession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base (crack) (Count 1) and (2) the possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense (Count 2). On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aiding and abetting, and that the district court erred by allowing a police officer to testify as an expert in drugs and drug distribution. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Harris alleges that there was insufficient evidence that he aided and abetted the distribution of crack or possessed the firearm in relationship to drug trafficking. Thus, he argues, the district court should have granted his motions for acquittal. This court reviews the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo. See United States v. Alerre , 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006) (stating standard). Viewing the evidence as required, we find there was substantial evidence to support Harris’ convictions of aiding and abetting. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to allow the police officer to testify as an expert in drugs and drug trafficking. SeeKumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) (stating review standard for expert testimony); United States v. Gastiaburo , 16 F.3d 582, 589- 3 - (4th Cir. 1994) (noting we have “repeatedly upheld the admission of law enforcement officers’ expert opinion testimony in drug trafficking cases”). Accordingly, we affirm Harris’ convictions. 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
#### David B. Jacobs, Appellant, v Sam Haber et al., Defendants, and Lynn R. D’Amico, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated January 23, 1987, which granted the motion of the defendant Lynn D’Amico to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against her, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 26, 1987, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 26, 1987 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 1987 is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, and the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Lynn D’Amico is reinstated; and it is further,

*740Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Lynn D’Amico’s time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant D’Amico because it overlooked an affidavit of Dr. Gunsberger, the defendant’s physician, that detailed D’Amico’s defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. We agree.

When a motion is made under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, every fact alleged must be assumed to be true and the complaint must be liberally construed in the plaintiff’s favor *(see, Barr v Wackman,*36 NY2d 371, 375). Applying this standard, the plaintiff’s verified complaint and accompanying exhibits, coupled with the reply affidavit of Dr. Gunsberger, are sufficient to state a cause of action sounding in defamation against the defendant D’Amico *(see, Laboratory of Chromatography v Eastern Labs.,*112 AD2d 143; *McMillian v Atlantic Oldsmobile,*115 AD2d 645). Since the communications were not related to diagnosis or treatment, they were not protected by the physician-patient privilege *(see,*CPLR 4504 [a]; *Hughson v St. Francis Hosp.,*93 AD2d 491, 498). Niehoff, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### Serafin REYES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17717.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*660Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Serafín Reyes, Jr., Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Serafín Reyes, Jr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by discontinuing a special diabetic diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm the judgment on any ground supported by the record. *Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,*49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We affirm.

Dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim was proper because Reyes failed to allege that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of harm to his health. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

The district court properly dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim because Reyes failed to allege that prison officials discriminated against him or denied him the benefits of a program, service or activity on the basis of his diabetes. *See Duffy v. Riveland,*98 F.3d 447, 455 (9th Cir.1996).

Reyes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.39


 


AGREEMENT EXTENDING TERM OF


PHANTOM STOCK AGREEMENT


 


THIS AGREEMENT
EXTENDING TERM OF PHANTOM STOCK AGREEMENT (the “Extension Agreement”) is made
and entered into as of the 31st day of December, 2009
by and between Affinity Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“AGI”) and [                              ]
(the “Executive”);


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, AGI and
Executive are parties to that certain Phantom Stock Agreement dated as of January 1,
2007 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, AGI wishes
to extend the term of the Agreement and Executive is willing to have the term
extended and to continue Executive’s duties with AGI on the terms set forth in
this Extension Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants contained herein and
other good and valuable consideration, AGI and Executive hereby agree as
follows:


 


1.                                    The term of the Agreement shall be extended and shall
continue until such time as AGI and the Executive have entered into an amended
agreement or a replacement agreement on terms that are mutually acceptable to
AGI and the Executive.


 


2.                                    This Extension Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original without the
production of the others, but all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.


 


3.                                    This Extension Agreement contains the entire understanding
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be varied,
modified or amended except by a writing signed by the parties to be
charged.  The making, execution and
delivery of this Extension Agreement by the parties hereto have been induced by
no representations, statements, warranties or agreements of the other except
those herein expressed.


 


4.                                    Except as otherwise specifically modified or amended hereby,
all of the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the individual party has hereunto set his hand and the corporate party has
caused these presents to be executed by a proper officer thereunto duly
authorized all as of the day and year first above written.


 


	
   

  	
  AFFINITY GROUP,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  [“Executive”]

  	
   

  
							



 


125
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2012

# **ALJ Decisions: 2012**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Title Group, Inc., (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Mark C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Mark C. Walker     
|    |  | Mark C. Walker         
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | March 27, 2006
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #17119 and #17120; California Disaster Number CA-00340]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4610-DR), dated 08/24/2021.

*Incident:*                         Wildfires.                    

*Incident Period:*                         07/14/2021 and continuing.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 09/18/2021.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/25/2021.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/24/2022.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 08/24/2021, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Tehama, Trinity.                

*Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

California: Glenn, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2021-20589 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/  GAD TOBALYName:
    Gad TobalyDate: October 20, 2005
    Title:
    Chief Executive Officer /s/  PHILIPPE OZANIANName:
    Philippe OzanianDate: October 20, 2005
    Title:
    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3
                                                                                
              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

    We have issued our report dated April 11, 1997 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of American List Corporation, appearing in the Annual
Report of Snyder Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1998 (the consolidated financial statements of American List Corporation are
not presented separately therein). We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the previously filed Registration Statements of
Snyder Communications, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration Numbers 333-13079,
effective September 30, 1996, 333-33829, effective August 18, 1997 and 333-
74741, effective March 19, 1999).


                                    Grant Thornton LLP

Melville, New York
March 30, 1999
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher STOUFFLET, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-13128

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 22, 2011.

Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Michael John Brown, Randy Scott Chartash, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mary Erickson, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mary Erickson, appointed counsel for Christopher Stoufflet in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Stoufflet has filed a *pro se*motion for the appointment of new counsel. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Stoufflet’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, and Stoufflet’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.