alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                          
                                        JURISDICTION OF     OTHER NAMES UNDER
                                        INCORPORATION OR    WHICH SUBSIDIARY
  NAME (AND % OWNED)                    ORGANIZATION        DOES BUSINESS    
-------------------------------------   ----------------    -----------------
Pyramid Stores, Inc. (100%)                 Colorado               None

Graves Oil & Butane Co., Inc.(100% by       New Mexico             None
 Pyramid Stores, Inc.)

El Boracho, Inc. (100% by Graves)           New Mexico             None

Hillger Oil Company (100% by Pyramid)       New Mexico             None

Hatch Pyramid LLC (75%)                     New Mexico             None

Capco Analytical Services, Inc.(100%)       California             None

Innovative Solutions and Technologies,
 Inc. (100%)                                Colorado               None

Meteor Holdings LLC (73%)                   Colorado               None

Capco Resources, Inc. (100% by Meteor       Delaware               None
 Holdings LLC)

Bloomfield Pyramid LLC (100%)               New Mexico             None

Graves Rio Rancho LLC (50%)                 New Mexico             None

Coors Pyramid, LLC (50%)                    New Mexico             None

Fleischli Oil Company, Inc. (100%)          Wyoming                None

American LP Ltd. Co. (33%)                  New Mexico             None

Socorro Pyramid L.L.C. (100%)               New Mexico             None 
/TEXT>
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

 

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT 

USDA Seeks Applications for Loans to Electric Utilities

(June 14, 2016) – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that USDA is seeking applications from 

non-profit financial institutions for loans to finance rural electric and/or telecommunications infrastructure. 

Projects must be eligible under the Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification or Telephone 

Purposes Program (the 313A Program), which is authorized under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

Applications will be accepted only from lenders that serve rural areas and must be received by 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, July 15, 2016. USDA is making available up to $750 million in funding for 

Fiscal Year 2016. 

Under the 313A Program, the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) will make loans to the selected applicant (s) and 

RUS will guarantee repayment of the loans to FFB. Selected applicants may use the funds to make loans to 

borrowers for electrification or telecommunications purposes, or to refinance bonds or notes previously issued 

by the guarantor. 

Fees from the 313A Program are used to fund USDA’s Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant 

(REDLG) program, which finances projects that create jobs and increase economic development in rural areas. 

For additional details on the program and how to apply, see page 38660 of the June 14, 2016 Federal Register. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2007006EN.01000202.xml

| 11.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4481 — ONEX Corporation/SITEL Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 6/04)

On 21 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32006M4481. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4481. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2014078EN.01000701.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-40/10) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Application for annulment - Rights of the defence - Late notification of Commission’s investigation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Liability of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Duration of the infringements - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Fines imposed on a parent company differing in amount from those imposed on a subsidiary - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2014/C 78/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger, A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, J. Bourke and A. Biolan, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                  Know All Persons By These Presents, that each person whose
signature appears below constitutes and appoints Peter S. Lowy, Mark A. Stefanek
and Irv Hepner, and each of them, with full power to act without the others, his
true and lawful attorneys-in fact and agents, with full and several power of
substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Westfield America, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1999 (the "Annual Report"), and to file the
same, with all exhibits thereto, and to sign any amendments to the Annual Report
and to file the same, with exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as they or he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power
of Attorney on this 28th day of March 2000.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7740

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHARON PENDERGRASS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-92-216, CA-97-1249-21B-4)

Submitted: June 16, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharon Pendergrass, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Pendergrass seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Pendergrass, Nos. CR-92-216; CA-97-1249-

21B-4 (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 1997). We also deny Pendergrass’ “Motion Requesting Additional Grounds to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Set Aside/

Vacate or Correct A Sentence.” 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.

DISMISSED
#### Norman Grody, Administrator, et al. *v.*George A. Tulin et al.

*Joel M. Ellis,*in support of the motion.

*Robert L. Trowbridge*and *Louis B. Blumenfeld,*in opposition.

Submitted February 14

decided March 20, 1974

The plaintiffs’ motion dated January 30, 1974, in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County for a review by this court of the trial court’s decision denying rectification of appeal is granted and the relief sought therein is denied.
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

PETER T. HARRELL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-35992

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03037-CL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

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

Plaintiff-appellant Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se the district court's denial

of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendants-appellees in

FILED

JUN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
connection with appellant's complaint for civil rights violations, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive

relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2008); see

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, --- U.S. ----, ----, 129 S. Ct. 365,

374, 172 L. Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports

Form, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of

review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court's order denying the preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED.
#### Rosa Gunderson, Administratrix, etc., of Peter A. Gunderson, Deceased, Respondent, v. Roebling Construction Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Post *&*McCord.

Order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich aud Miller, JJ., concurred
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-62890, 333-39171 and 333-87394) and the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-100793, 333-63804, 333-59163, 333-59157,
333-21997, 33-86634 and 33-94872) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan and
the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. of our report
dated February 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2002.

                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 25, 2003
## Browse All Stories

### From Black to Green:  A Biddeford, Maine boat yard on the site of a former coal-burning energy plant  turns to solar energy for the future

[Read More]

03.11.2024

BusinessClean EnergyEnergyInflation Reduction ActREAPRenewable Energy

### Working Together for Change on Spruce Head Island: Maine Oyster Company Goes Green with REAP Grant

[Read More]

01.17.2024

BusinessClean EnergyEnergyEntrepreneurInflation Reduction ActLocal FoodsRenewable EnergySmall BusinessSolar Energy

### Green energy: photovoltaic array powers growth of Alaskan produce business

[Read More]

11.01.2023

BusinessEnergyLocal FoodsLocal ProduceREAPRenewable EnergyRural DevelopmentSmall BusinessSolar Energy

### Geothermal Technology Helps Couple Make Year-Round Cut Flower Farm a Reality

[Read More]

10.05.2023

Renewable Energy

### Replacing a Relic to Keep a Community Market Growing Strong

[Read More]

10.05.2023

Renewable Energy

### REAP Adds Another Level of Sustainability to Bio-based Business

[Read More]

04.21.2023

BiobasedBiopreferredEnergyREAPRenewable EnergySolar Energy

### Entrepreneurs and RD: a Match Meant to Bee 

[Read More]

02.14.2023

EntrepreneurLocal FoodsMade in Rural AmericaREAPRenewable EnergySmall BusinessValue Added

### Going Solar in Fulton 

[Read More]

02.08.2023

GrantsREAPRenewable EnergySolar Energy

### REAP Grant Helps Rural Farming Business Go Solar 

[Read More]

02.08.2023

REAPRenewable EnergySmall Business

### East Kentucky entrepreneur uses solar power to significantly cut power costs

[Read More]

01.26.2023

EnergyEntrepreneurREAPRenewable Energy

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-              4           
-   Next
ey DRY TORTUGAS 8770
ERS SCALE 1:100,000
—  LIBT
# C_2013071EN.01001502.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Cosepuri v EFSA

(Joined Cases T-339/10 and T-532/10) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Shuttle service in Italy and Europe - Tenderer’s bid rejected - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Non-contractual liability - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Bid of the successful tenderer - Access refused - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

2013/C 71/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: F. Fiorenza, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment relating to tender procedure CFT/EFSA/FIN/2010/01 for the award of a shuttle service contract in Italy and Europe (OJ 2010/S 51-074689), together with a claim for damages (Case T-339/10), and an application for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 15 September 2010 refusing to grant the applicant access to the bid of the successful tenderer in the tender procedure in question (Case T-532/10)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
#### § 543.19 [Reserved]
#### § 354.24 Financial interest of inspectors.

No inspector shall render service on any product in which he is financially interested.
#### Squier and others, trustees, *vs.*Shaw and others.

1. An answer, of which any part entitles it to fill the character it assumes, will not be ordered to be stricken from the files.

2. When an answer is impertinent only in part, the remedy is by exceptions.

3. It is not impertinence, in an answer to a bill for foreclosure by a second mortgagee, to aver that his mortgage is for a larger amount than is alleged in the bill, nor in an answer thereto by the mortgagor, to aver that he has paid a specified sum on the complainants’ mortgage, for which he claims credit.

*75On motion to strike out answers.

*Mr. Thomas Anderson,*for complainants.

*Mr. W. Luse,*for defendants.

The Chancellor.

The complainants move to strike out the respective answers of Rusilla Wintermute and Caroline Shaw, as frivolous and impertinent. The bill is filed to foreclose a mortgage held by the complainants upon premises owned by Mrs. Shaw, and upon which Mrs. Wintermute has a subsequent mortgage. It prays answer, on oath, from the defendants. It states that Mrs. Wintermute’s mortgage was made to secure the payment of $400, with interest. These defendants were called upon to answer as to the facts stated in the bill; to answer, among other things, as to the making and priority of the complainants’ mortgage.

Mrs. Wintermute admits both, and answers that her mortgage was made to secure $1000 of principal, instead of $400, and that the former sum, besides interest, is due upon it. Mrs. Shaw, in her answer, admits the making of the mortgages of the complainants and Mrs. Wintermute, and the priority of the former over the latter, but sets up a payment, sufficiently well pleaded, of $1200, on the complainants’ mortgage, for which she claims credit.

The complainants insist that these things are all subjects of proof, and that the answers in respect to them are immaterial, and that, in other respects, the answers are impertinent. They, therefore, ask that they be stricken out. If these answers had contained no more than the matters above specified, could the court have been successfully appealed to, to strike them out ? And will the fact that they contain other matters which are impertinent, make them impertinent or immaterial in the respects above referred to ?

There are parts of both these documents which entitle them to fill the character they assume. The court will not, *76therefore, order them to be taken off the files. 1 *Daniell's Ch. Pr.*786 ; *Travers*v. *Ross,*1 *McCarter*257.

The remedy of the complainants is by exception to the answers.

The motion is denied.
# -#3

United States Government Department ofEnergy 

# Memorandum
DATE: January28, 2003 REPLYTO: BrianCard,EE-2J SUBJECT: DOE Request for FurtherHID 

### andERlBRLamp data TO: Joe Howley, NEMA/GE Thanks for meetingwith us onJanuary 21st. We thank you for the data NEMA has provided and will provide to the Department

- it is essential for us to arrive at infonned decisions. During the meeting, we verballyrequested additional data summarized below (this includes additional data identified after the meetingthat would be useful.) HID • The data provided earlier gave 1.8 million MV lamps in 2000, the data provided onthe 21 5t was 2.6 million in 2001 (a 44% increase). Can you provide some insight into this? What are expectations for the future increase/decrease for MY? • Can you provide the breakdown in for HID in 2001for MV, MH, HPS annual sales? • Can you provide trend data for interveningyears (1994-2000) for MercuryVapor Lamps for thebreakdowns you provided for 2001, DOE is especiallyinterested in "Medium Based

- All" and "175 Watt

- Mogul Based". What is the trend is looking like (straight-line curve oris there a plateau occurring)? • In what markets do you see the MercuryVapor persisting? • Does the HID and MY lamps dataprovidedby NEMA include imports? Ifnot, whatpercent oftotal U.S. sales does this account for? Forthe portion that are imports where are these lamps comingfrom? • Forthe decline in MV is this a reduction in sales ofMV or a decline in NEMA member's share ofthat market? • Can you provide any insight into what breakout is for the 175 Watt (cobra, dusk to dawn, and what else)? • Can you provide anyindication for the MH what percent are pulse start? • Forthe medium base MY lamps can you describe the applications (landscape, explosionproof, and what else)? • Could NEMA poll two or three major commercial fixture manufacturers on the percent ofmercuryvapor fixtures shipped for the following categories: down lights, recessed lensed, low bay, high bay, flood lights, wall packs, garage fixtures, area/parking (post mounted), street lights, and dusk to dawn? BR/ER • Can you provide us with the average wattage in the breakdowns you provided (BR 30 85 watt, BR30 less than 66 watt, etc.)? • In the BR/PARlB-PAR, BR Lamps, what is the market trend (what areas are

### growing/declining). Data points in the 10 previous years would be helpful. • What is the current and historical numbers for 

### HIR (halogen infrared). Is this included in "Halogen PAR38" and "Halogen PAR30"?
Cc: Bryan Berringer Ronald Lewis Craig Updyke
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0307 Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 079 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, AS332L , AS332L 1, AS332L 2, and EC225LP Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 6 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the main gearbox and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work - hour x $ 8 5 /work hour for the records review ) (14 w ork - hour x $85/work hour for the “CHIP” modification) (2 work - hour x $85/work hour for the inspection) $ 85 $1,190 $170 per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : R ao Edupuganti