alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007125EN.01000202.xml

| 6.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4645 — APW/GMG/Trader Media Investments)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 125/04)

On 30 May 2007, 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 32007M4645. 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 32007M4645. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
### §4228. Nonreviewability of action by Attorney General

Notwithstanding any other law, no court shall have jurisdiction over any claim based on any action taken by the Attorney General or any refusal to take action under this subchapter, except for failure to provide notification under section 4226 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2583, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4903.)
# C_2013352EN.01001101.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-248/10) (1)

1

(Languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Regulation No 1/58 - Article 1d(1), Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of non-discrimination)

2013/C 352/19

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, J. Baquero Cruz and B. Eggers, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5), in the fields of European Public Administration, Law, Economics, Audit, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (OJ 2010 C 64A, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5), in the fields of European Public Administration, Law, Economics, Audit, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5), in the fields of European Public Administration, Law, Economics, Audit, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Italian Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
Exhibit






Exhibit 10(n)
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
		
	•
	Cash compensation for each non-employee Director consists of the following:


		
	▪
	Annual Retainer of $70,000; 


		
	▪
	An additional $20,000 annual retainer for each Committee or Subcommittee Chaired by a Director; and


		
	▪
	An additional $20,000 annual retainer for the Lead Director.


		
	•
	Employee Directors are not compensated for service as Directors.


		
	•
	Directors Stock Grant Program:


		
	▪
	Annually, each non-employee Director receives a grant of TCF common stock equal to $45,000.  For any Director elected after a stock grant has been awarded, a pro-rata stock grant is awarded;


		
	▪
	The number of shares granted is determined by dividing $45,000 by the average of the high and low prices of TCF common stock on the grant date;


		
	▪
	The stock grant vests annually, when the next grant is made;


		
	▪
	Dividends are paid on unvested shares at the rate generally paid to holders of TCF common stock; and


		
	▪
	Unvested shares will vest if a change in control occurs.


		
	•
	Non-employee Directors may defer fees and stock grants under the TCF Directors Deferred Compensation Plan until the end of their Board service.


		
	•
	TCF offers the TCF Matching Gift Program to supplement donations made by non-employee Directors to charitable organizations of their choice up to a maximum of $20,000 annually.


		
	•
	TCF reimburses Directors for travel and other expenses to attend Board meetings or attend to other Board business as a business expense, and TCF occasionally holds Board retreats at a remote location and pays Directors’ travel and lodging expenses incurred in connection with the meeting, as well as those of the Directors’ spouses or significant others.
# C_2006224EN.01003602.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Vounakis v Commission

(Case T-165/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Career development review - 2001/2002 assessment exercise - Incompetence of the appeal assessor - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

(2006/C 224/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hippocrate Vounakis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of 23 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 23 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 in so far as it concerns the section ‘Conduct in the service’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 23 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 in so far as it concerns the section ‘Conduct in the service’;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and one third of those incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and one third of those incurred by the applicant;

| 4. | Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

1

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 19, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 19, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0109. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al. v. THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH ADAMS BY EXECUTOR, ADRIAN ADAMS et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 20C01546
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0572-0107. The time

required to complete this information collection is estimated to average .1 of an hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Utilities Service

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION FOR BUILDINGS

PROJECT DESIGNATION

I, the undersigned Architect of the above-designated Rural Utilities Service Project, hereby certify that:

1. The construction provided for pursuant to Construction Contract No.

dated I I including all approved amendments, (hereinafter called the

''Project'), between (hereinafter

called the "Owner') and

(hereinafter called the "Contractor') has been completed as of I , and

is in all respects in strict compliance with the provisions of the Loan Contract and the Construction Contract,

including the Plans and Specifications and all modifications and amendments thereto.

2. To the best of my knowledge, payment in full has been made to all persons who have furnished labor for the

Project.

3. The Contractor has, to the best of my knowledge, obtained valid releases of lien ftom all Manufacturers,

materialmen, and subcontractors that furnished materials or services or both which were employed by the

Contractor in the performance of the Construction Contract, and that such releases have been delivered to the Owner.

4. All defects in workmanship and materials reported during the period of construction of the Project have

been corrected.

5. The final Contract Price of the Project as completed is

dollars ($ ).

DATE REPRESENTATIVE OF ARCHITECT TITLE

ACCEPTANCE

DATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CONTRACTOR TITLE

DATE NAME OF OWNER PRESIDENT - BOARD OF DIRECTORS

RUS Form 181 (Rev. 2-95)
#### Edward I. Horwich, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Elaine L. Horwich, Defendant-Appellee.

(No. 59891;

First District (4th Division)

November 27, 1974.

Arthur W. Friedman, of Chicago (Devoe, Shadur & Krupp, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas C. O’Brien, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA is Advancing Equity in Distressed Rural Communities by Increasing the

Maximum Loan Amount Under the Intermediary Relending Program to $400,000

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21, 2021 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Xochitl Torres Small today announced that the Department is increasing the maximum loan 

amount to $400,000 under the Intermediary Relending Program. This change is in accordance with provisions 

in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill).

USDA is offering priority points to projects that advance key priorities under the Biden-Harris Administration 

to help communities recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, advance equity and combat climate change. These 

extra points will increase the likelihood of funding for projects seeking to address these critical challenges in 

rural America.

The Intermediary Relending Program provides low-interest loans to local lenders, known as intermediaries, that 

re-lend the funds to businesses to advance equity in rural America by creating new opportunities in distressed 

communities.

In a final rule published today, USDA increased the maximum loan amount to $400,000 for projects financed 

under the program. The new funding limit can increase an intermediary’s impact in the communities they are 

serving. Additionally, rural businesses can use these loans to pay off existing debt. USDA also is expanding the 

ability for intermediaries to request a partial or full return on equity contributions for loans made through the 

program. 

For additional information, see page 72151 of the Dec. 21, 2021, Federal Register.

If you would like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
  Asante Technologies, Inc.

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-73454) of Asante Technologies,  Inc. of our report
dated October 30, 2000,  except for note 10, as to which the date is December 1,
2000, relating to the financial  statements and financial  statement  schedules,
which appear in this Form 10K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
December 28, 2000

                                       54
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             0
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 38,202<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                   46,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              88,793        
<PP&E>                                       135,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                37,480    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               231,685      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         47,668    
<BONDS>                                       95,011  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0 
<PREFERRED>                                        0 
<COMMON>                                          90 
<OTHER-SE>                                    78,684       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 231,685         
<SALES>                                      259,190          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             259,190          
<CGS>                                        232,069          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                232,069          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              14,232       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,378       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,552       
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,951      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,601      
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  310      
<CHANGES>                                          0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,291 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .38 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
<FN>
<F1> Notes and accounts receivable -- trade are reported net of allowances for
     doubtful accounts in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
</FN> 
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007095EN.01005601.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/56

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2007 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission

(Case T-198/06) (1)

1

(2007/C 95/112)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

1

---
Exhibit
31.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 I, John
A. Jenkins, certify that:
 
 1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Rapid Link,
Incorporated;
 
 2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.     I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
registrant and have:
 
 a) 
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
 Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) 
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.     The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) 
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which could adversely affect the
registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 
 b) 
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 
 Date:
      February 15, 2010
              /s/
      John A. JenkinsJohn
      A. JenkinsChief
      Executive Officer, President, Treasurer and
  Director
II

Calendar No. 301

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1398

[Report No. 106–171]

To clarify certain boundaries on maps relating to the Coastal Barrier

Resources System.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 20, 1999

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

OCTOBER 6, 1999

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, with an amendment

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To clarify certain boundaries on maps relating to the Coastal

Barrier Resources System.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RE4 SOURCES SYSTEM MAPS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 7 maps described in sub6 section (b) are replaced by 31 maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Bar-
2

•S 1398 RS

1 rier Resources System, NC–03P’’, designated as Cape

2 Hatteras 5A through 5G, and dated May 26, 1999.

3 (b) MAPS DESCRIBED.—The maps described in this

4 subsection are the 7 maps that—

5 (1) relate to the unit of the Coastal Barrier Re6 sources System entitled ‘‘Cape Hatteras NC–03P’’;

7 (2) are designated as Cape Hatteras 5A

8 through 5G; and

9 (3) are included in a set of maps entitled

10 ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’, dated October

11 24, 1990, and referred to in section 4(a) of the

12 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).

13 (c) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior

14 shall keep the maps that replace the maps described in

15 subsection (b) on file and available for inspection in ac16 cordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Re17 sources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

18 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RE19 SOURCES SYSTEM MAPS.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 7 maps described in subsection

21 (b) are replaced by 14 maps entitled ‘‘Dare County, North

22 Carolina, Coastal Barrier Resources System, Cape Hatteras

23 Unit NC–03P’’ or ‘‘Dare County, North Carolina, Coastal

24 Barrier Resources System, Cape Hatteras Unit NC–03P,

25 Hatteras Island Unit L03’’ and dated July 1, 1999.
3

•S 1398 RS

1 (b) DESCRIPTION OF MAPS.—The maps described in

2 this subsection are the 7 maps that—

3 (1) relate to the portions of Cape Hatteras Unit

4 NC–03P and Hatteras Island Unit L03 that are lo5 cated in Dare County, North Carolina; and

6 (2) are included in a set of maps entitled

7 ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’, dated October

8 24, 1990, and referred to in section 4(a) of the Coast9 al Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).

10 (c) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall

11 keep the maps referred to in subsection (a) on file and avail12 able for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the

13 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
Calendar No. 301

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1398

[Report No. 106–171]

A BILL

To clarify certain boundaries on maps relating to

the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

OCTOBER 6, 1999

Reported with an amendment
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LINDA SMITH,

APPELLANT,

V.

JOHN BURT,

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00317-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

APPELLEE.

§

(TC# 89-11455)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. Finding that the Appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution.

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on March 25, 2015 but none was filed. On April 1, 

2015, the Clerk notified Appellant that her brief was past due and no motion for extension of 

time had been filed. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal 

for want of prosecution unless Appellant responded within ten days and showed grounds for 

continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). Neither the brief nor a motion for extension 

of time in which to file the brief has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution.

April 22, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.