alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40073 

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOLORES PADILLA-PECINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-411-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dolores Padilla-Pecina (Padilla) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in

the United States after deportation and after having been

convicted of an aggravated felony. Padilla argues that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. 

Padilla’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Padilla contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly
No. 06-40073

-2-

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the

basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States

v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Padilla properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906
CERTIFICATION OF HAMON FRANCIS FYTTON





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



I, Hamon Francis Fytton,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Gold Entertainment Group, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period ended January 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Gold Entertainment Group, Inc.

Prepared and Signed

December 21, 2004



By:/s/
Hamon Francis Fytton

Name: Hamon Francis Fytton

Title: Chief Executive
Officer
# Euroopa Liidu C 41/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 41 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 65. aastakäik27. jaanuar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 41

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

65. aastakäik27. jaanuar 2022

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2022/C 41/01 | Euro vahetuskurss — 26. jaanuar 2022 | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2022/C 41/01

Euro vahetuskurss — 26. jaanuar 2022

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 27.1.2022 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 41/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2022

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 41/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

26. jaanuar 2022

(2022/C 41/01)

1 euro =

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,1277 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 128,86 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4420 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,83458 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 10,4493 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,0386 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | 145,60 |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 10,0115 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria leev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 24,531 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 359,67 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,5864 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 4,9451 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 15,2877 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,5727 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,4173 |
| HKD | Hongkongi dollar | 8,7791 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,6865 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,5162 |
| KRW | Korea vonn | 1 350,03 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 17,0858 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 7,1293 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,5290 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 16 185,31 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,7268 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 57,728 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 89,2650 |
| THB | Tai baat | 37,169 |
| BRL | Brasiilia reaal | 6,1084 |
| MXN | Mehhiko peeso | 23,1845 |
| INR | India ruupia | 84,4288 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,1277

JPY

Jaapani jeen

128,86

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4420

GBP

Inglise nael

0,83458

SEK

Rootsi kroon

10,4493

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,0386

ISK

Islandi kroon

145,60

NOK

Norra kroon

10,0115

BGN

Bulgaaria leev

1,9558

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

24,531

HUF

Ungari forint

359,67

PLN

Poola zlott

4,5864

RON

Rumeenia leu

4,9451

TRY

Türgi liir

15,2877

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,5727

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,4173

HKD

Hongkongi dollar

8,7791

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,6865

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,5162

KRW

Korea vonn

1 350,03

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

17,0858

CNY

Hiina jüaan

7,1293

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,5290

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

16 185,31

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,7268

PHP

Filipiini peeso

57,728

RUB

Vene rubla

89,2650

THB

Tai baat

37,169

BRL

Brasiilia reaal

6,1084

MXN

Mehhiko peeso

23,1845

INR

India ruupia

84,4288

---

(1)  Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/30/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      361,488
COMMITMENTS
  60,987  143,200   66,354  216,020  131,881  343,361  341,435   18,127   20,053

CHANGES FROM 10/23/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -15,313)
  -6,034  -13,918    6,282   -7,971   -1,006   -7,723   -8,642   -7,590   -6,671

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    16.9     39.6     18.4     59.8     36.5     95.0     94.5      5.0      5.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      50       62       63       37       38      130      128
```

----

Updated November 2, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 28847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10109]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: May 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
May 5, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 740 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-56, CP2022-
61.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-10109 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Georgia PLUMB, et al., petitioners, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 18-49.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3 denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135812 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan IN RE STEVEN ZI MMERMAN, a/k/a THOMAS LUJAN JO HNSON, Minor. Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

___________________ ___________________ SHANE EDWARD JOHNSON, and PATRICIA JOHNSON, Petitioners,

and

KASSANDRA ZIMMERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 135812 COA: 279696 Ottawa CC Fam Div: 07-057516-AD SHAUN ALAN BYRON, a/k/a SHAWN ALAN BYRON, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACA TE that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing “The Grant of Immedi ate Custody to Byron [respondent],” and we REMAND this case to the Ottawa Circuit Court Family Division. The Court of Appeals erred in reviewing the circuit court’s order as one that gave respondent custody of the minor child. Instead, the circuit court ruled that it was awarding “temporary placement ” of the child with resp ondent and further urged the partie s to act quickly to settle the custody issue. We AFFIRM that ruling and DIRECT that court to resolve the custody dispute in an expeditious mann er, if that has not already occu rred. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals judgment is affirmed.

l0325 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2008

Clerk
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

IH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LIDIO CABRAL-CABRAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-75182

Agency No. A090-176-653

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Jose Lidio Cabral-Cabral, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for a § 212(h) waiver

FILED

DEC 07 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
IH/Research 2 05-75182

of inadmissability. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, SanchezCruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

Cabral-Cabral’s contention concerning the retroactive application of 8

C.F.R. § 212.7(d) is foreclosed by Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 997-99 (9th

Cir. 2007). Cabral-Cabral’s contention that his conviction under California Penal

Code §288(a) is not a crime of violence is also foreclosed. Mejia, 499 F.3d at 999.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of CabralCabral’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(h) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mejia, 499 F.3d

at 999. Cabral-Cabral’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by

disregarding his evidence of hardship to his wife and misapplying the law to the

facts of his case is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable

due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005). 

Cabral-Cabral’s due process rights were not violated by the admission of his

probation officer’s report because the report was probative and its admission was

not fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.
IH/Research 3 05-75182

1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a deportation

proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is

fundamentally fair”); Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1975)

(“Hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, which need not strictly

follow conventional evidence rules.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2119

In re: JONATHAN CORNISH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:07-cr-00592-RDB-1, 1:07-cr-00604-RDB-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 6, 2020

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Cornish, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Cornish petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling 

modification of his sentence. We conclude that Cornish is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 

907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Cornish is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Gerald Andrew DARBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5508.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Moses WATTS, Sr., et ux., petitioners, v. ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.

No. 18-1324.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arkansas denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1797 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1797

To amend section 203 of the National Housing Act to require properties 
   that are subject to mortgages insured under the FHA single family 
 housing mortgage insurance program to be inspected and determined to 
comply with the minimum property standards established by the Secretary 
                   of Housing and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 1999

 Mr. Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mr. Gutierrez) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 203 of the National Housing Act to require properties 
   that are subject to mortgages insured under the FHA single family 
 housing mortgage insurance program to be inspected and determined to 
comply with the minimum property standards established by the Secretary 
                   of Housing and Urban Development.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FHA Property Inspection Act''.

SEC. 2. INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended 
by inserting after subsection (k) the following new subsection:
    ``(l) Property Inspection.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this section, a dwelling may not be provided insurance pursuant 
        to this section unless the dwelling has been determined, 
        pursuant to an inspection by a building inspector certified 
        under paragraph (2), to comply with the minimum property 
        standards issued by the Secretary and applicable to properties 
        insured under this section.
            ``(2) Certification of inspectors.--The Secretary shall 
        establish such licensing and other qualifications for building 
        inspectors as the Secretary considers appropriate to ensure 
        that inspections under paragraph (1) are conducted in a 
        competent and professional manner. The Secretary shall certify 
        building inspectors meeting such qualifications as authorized 
        to conduct such inspections.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall apply only to properties 
approved for mortgage insurance after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 on Form 10-Q of Bedford Property Investors, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter B. Bedford, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), 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:August 2, 2003

/s/ Peter B. Bedford



Peter B. Bedford

Chief Executive Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Richard Lloyd ODOM, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 18-5231.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division denied.
Silvio Lopez CUELLAR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8846.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/04/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      221,870
COMMITMENTS
  70,339    7,804   31,614   88,198  152,551  190,151  191,969   31,719   29,901

CHANGES FROM 12/28/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,048)
    -135    1,632      861      222     -309      948    2,184    2,100      864

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    31.7      3.5     14.2     39.8     68.8     85.7     86.5     14.3     13.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      220)
      82       23       57       56       87      155      158
```

----

Updated January 7, 2011
Wendy B. DOLIN, petitioner, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, fka SmithKline Beecham Corporation.

No. 18-803.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# L_2011262EN.01001901.xml

| 6.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 262/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 262/19

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 65/2011

of 1 July 2011

amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 28/2011 of 1 April 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 28/2011 of 1 April 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2010/667/EU of 4 November 2010 amending Decision 2007/66/EC on a temporary experiment with regard to increasing the maximum weight of a lot of certain fodder plant seeds under Council Directive 66/401/EEC (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2010/667/EU of 4 November 2010 amending Decision 2007/66/EC on a temporary experiment with regard to increasing the maximum weight of a lot of certain fodder plant seeds under Council Directive 66/401/EEC (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement.

| (3) | This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 50 (Commission Decision 2007/66/EC) in Part 2 of Chapter III of Annex I to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32010 D 0667: Commission Decision 2010/667/EU of 4 November 2010 (OJ L 288, 5.11.2010, p. 23).’. |
| --- | --- |

—

32010 D 0667: Commission Decision 2010/667/EU of 4 November 2010 (OJ L 288, 5.11.2010, p. 23).’.

Article 2

The text of Decision 2010/667/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 2 July 2011, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 1 July 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 171, 30.6.2011, p. 27.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 288, 5.11.2010, p. 23.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---