alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006256EN.01001301.xml

| 24.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4432 — Oerlikon/Saurer)

(2006/C 256/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 16 October 2006 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which OC Oerlikon Corporation AG (‘Oerlikon’, Switzerland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Saurer AG (‘Saurer’, Switzeland), by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 October 2006 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which OC Oerlikon Corporation AG (‘Oerlikon’, Switzerland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Saurer AG (‘Saurer’, Switzeland), by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | Oerlikon: coatings, optical components, semiconductor equipment, other equipment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Oerlikon: coatings, optical components, semiconductor equipment, other equipment;

| — | Saurer: textile machinery, automotive transmission systems. |
| --- | --- |

—

Saurer: textile machinery, automotive transmission systems.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4432 — Oerlikon/Saurer, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4432 — Oerlikon/Saurer, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

1

---
§ 92.6 Determination of the date of effective enforcement of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. ( a ) In order for APHIS to determine the eligibility of live bovines for importation from a region classified as BSE negligible risk or BSE controlled risk, APHIS must determine the date from which a ban on the feeding of ruminant material to ruminants has been effectively enforced in the region. APHIS will base its determination of the date of effective enforcement on the information included in the dossier the region submitted when it requested to be classified regarding BSE risk. The information APHIS will consider will include, but not be limited to: ( 1 ) Policies and infrastructure for feed ban enforcement, including an awareness program for producers and farmers;
( 2 ) Livestock husbandry practices;
( 3 ) Disposition of processed animal protein produced from domestic bovines, including the feeding of such material to any animal species;
( 4 ) Measures taken to control cross-contamination and mislabeling of feed; and
( 5 ) Monitoring and enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, including audit findings in rendering plants and feed mills that process ruminant material.
( b ) After conducting its evaluation, APHIS will announce in the Federal Register for public comment the date APHIS considers to be the date of effective enforcement of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in the requesting region, and will make available to the public the evaluation conducted by APHIS, as well as the supporting documentation. Following review of any comments received, the Administrator will announce his or her final determination in the Federal Register, along with a discussion of and response to pertinent issues raised by commenters.
TONY LEE SMOAKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5357

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 10, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr. and Gary J. Schwartz, of Brownstone, P.A., Winter Park, for 

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2013038EN.01000601.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others

(Case C-226/11) (1)

1

(Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Appreciable restriction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(2) - National competition authority - Practices which may affect trade between Member States - Proceedings and penalty - Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained - Restrictions by object)

2013/C 38/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Expedia Inc.

Applicant:

Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l'Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, VFE Commerce, IDTGV

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Relationship between Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and national competition laws — Possibility for national courts and national competition authorities to bring proceedings and to impose penalties in respect of an agreement, decision or concerted practice which may affect trade between Member States but which does not exceed the market share thresholds laid down by the Commission — Agreement with an anti-competitive object.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 101(1) TFUE and 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 (EC) and 82 (EC) must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from applying Article 101(1) TFEU to an agreement between undertakings that may affect trade between Member States, but that does not reach the thresholds specified by the European Commission in its notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1), (EC) (de minimis), provided that that agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---
Order entered December 1 6 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00829
- CV
BALTASAR D. CRUZ , Appellant

V. VICTOR HERNANDEZ AND GUILLERMO MARTINEZ , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 18209

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 14, 2022 unopposed second
motion for extension of deadline to file his brief

. Appellant explains the exten sion is necessary, in part, because supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records he has requested have not yet been filed.
We GRANT the motion . We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre and court reporter David Langford to file the supplemental records appellant requested on December 12, 2022 no later than January 5, 2023. We RESET thedeadline for the filing of appellant’s brief to February 6, 2023 or thirty days from

the filing of the records, whichever is later.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Co urt to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre, Mr. Langford, and the parties.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
PUBLIC LAW 113–258—DEC. 18, 2014 128 STAT. 2927 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4416: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–258 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 161 

Live Oak Street in Miami, Arizona, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MANUEL V. MENDOZA POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 161 Live Oak Street in Miami, Arizona, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 18, 2014. 

Dec. 18, 2014 

[H.R. 4416] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP




We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-56432) of Asante Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated  November  1, 2002,  except for note 10, as to which the date is March 13,
2003, note 7, as to which the date is November 30, 2003, and note 1, as to which
the date is December 30, 2003 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule which appear in this Form 10-K.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
March 2, 2004



                                       74
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-950 Filed: June 3, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED TERRANCE BERNSTEIN, * * Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman Petitioner, * v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Reasonable
* Amount Requested to which Respondent
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Does Not Object. AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Richard Moeller, Berenstein, Moore, et al., Sioux City, IA , for Petitioner. Justine Walters, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION 1

On October 6, 2014, Terrance Bernstein (“Peti tioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alle ged that the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 26, 2012 caused him to suffer from bila teral brachial plexopathy. On May 19, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing the petition.

On June 2, 2015, Respondent filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs. Pursuant to their S tipulation, the parties have agre ed to an award of $17,316.42 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with Ge neral Order Number 9, Petitioner represents that he has not incurred any costs in pursuit of his claim. See Stat ement Pursuant to General Order No. 9, filed May 26, 2015.

The undersigned finds that this petition was br ought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an awar d for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Furthe r, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $17,316.42, in the

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No . 107 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to file a motion for redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or fi nancial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” In the absence of su ch motion, the entire decision will be available to the public. Id.2 form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petition er’s counsel, Richard

Moeller.

In the absence of a motion for review file d pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgme nt is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
§ 95.23 Bones, horns, and hoofs; importations permitted subject to restrictions. Bones, horns, and hoofs offered for importation which do not meet the conditions or requirements of § 95.22 shall be handled and treated in the following manner after arrival at the port of entry: ( a ) They shall be consigned from the coast or border port of arrival to an approved establishment having facilities for their disinfection or their conversion into products customarily made from bones, horns, or hoofs: *Provided, however,* That I. T. or in-bond shipments of bones, horns, or hoofs may go forward under customs seals from a coast or border port of arrival, with the approval of an inspector at said port, to another port for consumption entry subject to the other provisions of this section.
( b ) They shall be moved from the coast or border port of arrival or, in case of I. T. or in-bond shipments, from the interior port to the establishment in cars or trucks with no other materials contained therein, sealed with seals of the Department, which shall not be broken except by inspectors or other persons authorized by the Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services so to do, or without sealing as aforesaid and with other freight when packed in tight cases or casks acceptable to an inspector at the port of entry.
( c ) They shall be handled at the establishment under the direction of an inspector in a manner to guard against the dissemination of anthrax, foot-and-mouth disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza, and Newcastle disease, and the bags, burlap, or other containers thereof, before leaving the establishment, shall be disinfected by heat or otherwise, as directed by the Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services or burned at the establishment. They shall not be removed therefrom except upon special permission of the Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services and upon compliance with all the conditions and requirements of this section relative to the movement of the said bones, horns, and hoofs.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0015) [28 FR 5981, June 13, 1963, as amended at 59 FR 67134, Dec. 29, 1994. Redesignated at 78 FR 73003, 73007, Dec. 4, 2013; 79 FR 71007, Dec. 1, 2014; 83 FR 15494, Apr. 11, 2018]
#### § 270.203 Determinations by jurisdictional agencies.

A jurisdictional agency must make determinations to which this part applies in accordance with procedures applicable to it under the law of its jurisdiction for making such determinations or for making comparable determinations.
# C_2013225EN.01004102.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/41

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

(Case C-486/11) (1)

1

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2005/14/EC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

2013/C 225/70

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves

Applicant:

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling -Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Interpretation of Article 1a of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — National provisions allowing the exclusion of the right of victims to compensation for accidents on the basis of an individual assessment of their contribution to the accident

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
#### § 319.300 Chili con carne.

“Chili con carne” shall contain not less than 40 percent of meat computed on the weight of the fresh meat. Mechanically Separated (Species) may be used in accordance with § 319.6. Head meat, cheek meat, and heart meat exclusive of the heart cap may be used to the extent of 25 percent of the meat ingredients under specific declaration on the label. The mixture may contain binders and extenders as provided in § 424.21(c) of subchapter E.

[55 FR 34684, Aug. 24, 1990, as amended at 76 FR 82078, Dec. 30, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,410,410
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,912,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                   231,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,329,208
<PP&E>                                      19,633,049
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,259,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,727,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,114,586
<BONDS>                                     25,331,307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       89,265,352
<PREFERRED>                                  3,684,336
<COMMON>                                         2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                (41,496,051)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,727,155
<SALES>                                     25,612,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,853,809
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,466,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (163,649)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,248,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,299,521)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,299,521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (471,216)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,770,737)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (121.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (121.65)



</TABLE>
### [§2795. Renumbered §454]
# C_2011113EN.01002004.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/20

---

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Rautaruukki v OHIM — Vigil Pérez (MONTERREY)

(Case T-217/10) (1)

1

2011/C 113/42

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
§ 700.479 Administrative review. ( a ) If the Commissioners determine that implementation of an application approved according to § 700.471 fails to meet the requirements of this subpart, the Commissioners shall give notice to the recipient of their intent to terminate or suspend financial assistance to the recipient.
( b ) The Commission shall issue such notice in written form sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, which notice shall include a statement of the reasons for the findings referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, and an explanation whether any amendments or actions would result in compliance with grant terms and conditions.
( c ) Any person whose approved financial assistance is terminated or suspended under paragraph (b) of this section may request a review of such action by the Commission. Such request for review shall be in writing and must be mailed or delivered to the Commission not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice from the Commission by the applicant. Such request for review shall state the reasons for the request and shall include any additional matters not before the Commission which the applicant deems appropriate. The Commission may grant or deny a review at its discretion and shall inform the applicant of its decision in writing.