alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023255EN.01000201.xml

| 20.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11151 – BDT / LGP / PROMACH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 255/02)

On 10 July 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11151. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11151. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BENJAMIN JORDAN JENKINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 598 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Whether it is permissible to revoke ARD in order to promote 

the spirit of the program when a defendant truthfully responds 

to application questions?

(2) Whether a defendant’s participation in ARD can be revoked 

when the defendant did not violate a condition of ARD, or 

applicable condition of probation, while participating in the 

program?
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 6, 2022

No. 04-22-00417-CV

Rigoberto SANCHEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

COTT BEVERAGES, INC.,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI02505

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s third motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED IN 

PART. Appellant’s brief is due on or before January 17, 2023. No further requests for an 

extension of time will be considered absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

**Chief Executive Officer Certification pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I,Ricardo A. Verdaguer, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc.; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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 oursupervision, 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) [omitted] 

(c) 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’sother 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 personsperforming the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Aug 14, 2006
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 23

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Response Oncology, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
33-45616) on Form S-8, the Registration Statement (NO. 33-21333) on Form S-8 and
the Registration Statement (No. 333-14371) on Form S-8 of Response Oncology,
Inc. of our report dated March 23, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Response Oncology, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and
1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, and the related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Response Oncology, Inc.



                                                                        KPMG LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
March 23, 1999
### §3002. Congressional declaration of purpose

In enacting this chapter, it is the intent of Congress to provide a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States; to provide for the establishment of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the national security; to provide a Department of Defense, including the three military Departments of the Army, the Navy (including naval aviation and the United States Marine Corps), and the Air Force under the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense; to provide that each military department shall be separately organized under its own Secretary and shall function under the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense; to provide for their unified direction under civilian control of the Secretary of Defense but not to merge these departments or services; to provide for the establishment of unified or specified combatant commands, and a clear and direct line of command to such commands; to eliminate unnecessary duplication in the Department of Defense, and particularly in the field of research and engineering by vesting its overall direction and control in the Secretary of Defense; to provide more effective, efficient, and economical administration in the Department of Defense; to provide for the unified strategic direction of the combatant forces, for their operation under unified command, and for their integration into an efficient team of land, naval, and air forces but not to establish a single Chief of Staff over the armed forces nor an overall armed forces general staff.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, §2, 61 Stat. 496; Aug. 10, 1949, ch. 412, §2, 63 Stat. 579; Pub. L. 85–599, §2, Aug. 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 514.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this legislation", meaning act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, 61 Stat. 495, known as the National Security Act of 1947, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 401 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1958—Pub. L. 85–599 amended section generally, and, among other changes, provided that each military department shall be separately organized, instead of separately administered, under its own Secretary and shall function under the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense, and inserted provisions relating to establishment of unified or specified combatant commands and for elimination of unnecessary duplication.

1949—Act Aug. 10, 1949, provided that the military departments shall be separately administered but be under the direction of the Secretary of Defense, and that there shall not be a single Chief of Staff over the armed forces nor an armed forces general staff.
No. 8227.

#### Bretz et al. *v.*Moore.

(Decided January 19, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

*Mr. Edmund B. King*and *Mr. George E. Withey:,.*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Richards & Heffner,*for defendant in error-

judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur;
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,059,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,136,000
<PP&E>                                     104,669,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (32,455,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,525,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,252,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,879,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,525,000
<SALES>                                     15,642,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,770,000
<CGS>                                        5,864,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,864,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,849,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             290,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,403,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,403,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 72.500 Emission limits for permissible diesel-powered equipment. ( a ) Each piece of permissible diesel-powered equipment introduced into an underground area of an underground coal mine after May 21, 2001 must emit no more than 2.5 grams per hour of diesel particulate matter.
( b ) As of July 19, 2002, each piece of permissible diesel-powered equipment operated in an underground area of an underground coal mine must emit no more than 2.5 grams per hour of diesel particulate matter.
[66 FR 5704, Jan. 19, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 15033, Mar. 15, 2001; 66 FR 27866, May 21, 2001]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Goscinski, Also Known as William B. Eichele, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered April 25, 1977, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the physical evidence. On this record, the codefendant’s consent to the detectives’ entrance into the hotel room shared by the codefendant and the appellant was voluntarily given (see *People v Gonzalez,*39 NY2d 122, 128-130; *People v Phiefer,*43 NY2d 719, 720). The items reported stolen were in plain view and could easily have been concealed or removed (see *People v Jacjcson,*41 NY2d 146, 150). The cases on which the appellant relies are inapposite on their facts. The appellant’s admission that he owned the black floral shirt reportedly worn *803by the suspect and found in a brown paper bag at the scene of the burglary was properly admitted in evidence, notwithstanding the absence of *Miranda*warnings, as the appellant was not in custody at the time of the interrogation (see *Matter of Kwok T.,*43 NY2d 213, 219-220; *People v Rodney P.,*21 NY2d 1, 10-11; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, 592-593, cert den 400 US 851; *Oregon v Mathiason,*429 US 492, 495). Even if the appellant’s admission were suppressed, the evidence established his guilt of burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The morning after the burglary was committed, the appellant was found asleep in a hotel room, the key to which was found at the scene of the burglary in the same paper bag as the black floral shirt worn by the suspect. The appellant apparently shared the hotel room with the codefendant whom the investigating detective had seen driving a van in the intersection where the burgled residence was located. Appellant’s appearance corresponded with the witnesses’ description of the suspect as a fairly tall, slim, young white male with shoulder length dark hair and no facial hair. A number of the stolen items were in plain view in the small hotel room. At the foot of the bed in which the appellant was found sleeping was a green floral shirt which was the same, except for color, as the black floral shirt worn by the suspect and found on the burgled premises. To a moral certainty, these facts exclude every reasonable hypothesis but guilt (see *People v Von Werne,*41 NY2d 584, 590; *People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29, 32; *People v Lagaña,*36 NY2d 71, 73). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: November 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 210)]
[Notices]               
[Page 67086]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no10-21]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear 
Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the 
European Atomic Energy Community.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 1,470,588.2 
kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (68.00% U), 1,000,000 kg 
of which is uranium, from Areva Resources Canada, Inc. (Areva 
Resources) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, to Eurodif Production in 
Pierrelatte, France. The material, which is currently located at Areva 
Resources, will be transferred to Eurodif Production for enrichment and 
use as fuel in civilian nuclear power programs in the United States and 
France. The material was originally obtained by Areva Resources from 
the Feed Component Substitution Implementing Contract.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: October 1, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27500 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
### §2055. Mandatory retirement

#### (a) Involuntary retirement

(1) Authority of director.—The Director may, in the Director's discretion, place in a retired status any participant in the system described in paragraph (2).

(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to any participant who has not less than 10 years of service with the Agency and who—

(A) has completed at least 25 years of service; or

(B) is at least 50 years of age and has completed at least 20 years of service.

#### (b) Mandatory retirement for age

#### (1) In general

A participant in the system shall be automatically retired from the Agency—

(A) upon reaching age 65, in the case of a participant in the system who is at the Senior Intelligence Service rank of level 4 or above; and

(B) upon reaching age 60, in the case of any other participant in the system.

#### (2) Effective date of retirement

Retirement under paragraph (1) shall be effective on the last day of the month in which the participant reaches the age applicable to that participant under that paragraph.

#### (3) Authority for extension

In any case in which the Director determines it to be in the public interest, the Director may extend the mandatory retirement date for a participant under this subsection by a period of not to exceed 5 years.

#### (c) Retirement benefits

A participant retired under this section shall receive retirement benefits in accordance with section 2031 of this title.

(Pub. L. 88–643, title II, §235, as added Pub. L. 102–496, title VIII, §802, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3225; amended Pub. L. 111–259, title II, §201, Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2657.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 235 of Pub. L. 88–643, title II, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1049; Ex. Ord. No. 12443, §13, Sept. 27, 1983, 48 F.R. 44754; Pub. L. 99–335, title V, §501(2), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 622; Pub. L. 102–183, title III, §307, Dec. 4, 1991, 105 Stat. 1265, related to mandatory retirement and was set out as a note under section 403 of this title prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 88–643 by section 802 of Pub. L. 102–496.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 111–259 substituted "who is at the Senior Intelligence Service rank" for "receiving compensation under the Senior Intelligence Service pay schedule at the rate".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of fourth month beginning after Oct. 24, 1992, see section 805 of Pub. L. 102–496, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
§ 585.421 How long will a lease or grant suspension be in effect? A lease or grant suspension will be in effect for the period specified by BOEM. ( a ) BOEM will not approve a lease or grant suspension request pursuant to § 585.416 for a period longer than 2 years.
( b ) If BOEM determines that the circumstances giving rise to a suspension ordered under § 585.417 cannot be resolved within 5 years, the Secretary may initiate cancellation of the lease or grant.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kelly,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 13, 2011

0112 

# Order

January 13, 2011

139996-7 (59)

ERNEST HORVATH, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139996-7 COA: 283931, 284842 Wayne CC: 07-713287-NI DON JOHNSON and SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, d/b/a SMART, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s November 30, 2010 order is considered , and it is DENIED, there bein g no majority in favor of granting reconsideration.

Y OUNG , C.J., and C ORRIGAN and M ARKMAN , JJ., would grant reconsideration for
the reasons set forth in Justice C ORRIGAN ’s dissenting statement in this case, 487 Mich ___ (2010).

M ARY B ETH K ELLY , J., not participating.