alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondents-Appellants, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for (1) Clearview Expressway from Horace Harding Expressway to Cross Island Parkway; (2) Addition to Bayside High School, and (3) Relocation for the Clearview Expressway. Jack Parker et al., Appellants-Respondents.

— -Motion by respondent City of New York to amend the decision and order of this court, dated December 31, 1959 (9 A D 2d 949), in accordance with a stipulation, dated August 22, 1960 between the parties, a copy of which is annexed to the moving papers. Motion granted. Said decision is amended by striking out its second paragraph and by substituting therefor the following paragraph: “Decrees insofar as appealed from modified upon the law and the facts by increasing the total award to appellant Parker from $1,832,029 to $1,917,000, which is divided and allocated as follows:

Clearview Expressway (Damage Parcels 522, 525 and 577) ................ Land $ 536,800. Bayside High School (Damage Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) ................ Land 242,100. Relocation, Clearview Expressway DP’s 1, 3 and 6.................................Land 691,800. DP 1-A...............................Land & Impts. 446,300. Total .......................................... $1,917,000. and by increasing the total award to the appellants Pickman from $710,310 to $750,000, which is divided and allocated as follows: Clearview Expressway (Damage Parcel 579)...........Land $ 76,700. Relocation, Clearview Expressway (Damage Parcels 1 to 13 inclusive).............................Land & Impts. 673,300. $ 750,000.

As so modified, decrees insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs to appellants. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein.” An amended order upon this amended decision will be entered accordingly. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
§ 716.5 Anthracite coal mines. ( a ) Permittees of anthracite surface coal mining and reclamation operations in those States where the mines are regulated by State environmental protection standards shall be subject to the environmental protection standards of the State regulatory program in existence on August 3, 1977, instead of part 715 and part 717 of this chapter.
( b ) The environmental protection provisions of Title 25, Rules and Regulations, part 1, Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, shall apply to reclamation of anthracite surface coal mining and reclamation operations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania instead of part 715 and part 717 of this chapter. In addition, the regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to standards for air and water quality shall apply instead of the regulations of part 715 and part 717 of this chapter.
( c ) If a State's regulatory program or regulations for anthracite surface coal mining and reclamation operations in force at the time of this Act are amended, the Secretary, upon receipt of a notice of amendment, shall issue additional regulations as necessary to meet the purposes of this Act.
[45 FR 61259, Sept. 15, 1980]
Certification 

I, Robert E. Killen, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of The Berwyn Funds;

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, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-2(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the Registrant and have:

(a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c)	presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.	The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant 's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of trustees (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls.

- The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or any other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: __________________				______________________________
# C_2023089EN.01002101.xml

| 10.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/21

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11063 – CVC CAPITAL / SCAN GLOBAL LOGISTICS)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 89/10)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’, Luxembourg), |
| --- | --- |

—

CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’, Luxembourg),

| — | SGL TransGroup US Corp (United States) and Scan (Jersey) TopCo Ltd (Jersey), together referred to as Scan Global Logistics, controlled by AEA Investors SBF LP (‘AEA’, United States). |
| --- | --- |

—

SGL TransGroup US Corp (United States) and Scan (Jersey) TopCo Ltd (Jersey), together referred to as Scan Global Logistics, controlled by AEA Investors SBF LP (‘AEA’, United States).

CVC will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Scan Global Logistics.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | CVC provides advice to and manages investment funds with interests in a number of companies active in a variety of industries around the world, primarily in Europe, the US and the Asia-Pacific region, |
| --- | --- |

—

CVC provides advice to and manages investment funds with interests in a number of companies active in a variety of industries around the world, primarily in Europe, the US and the Asia-Pacific region,

| — | Scan Global Logistics provides asset-light international freight forwarding services globally. Scan Global Logistics is currently controlled by AEA, which is active in private equity investment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Scan Global Logistics provides asset-light international freight forwarding services globally. Scan Global Logistics is currently controlled by AEA, which is active in private equity investment.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11063 – CVC CAPITAL / SCAN GLOBAL LOGISTICS

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-02-465-CR

DAVID KENNETH MOORE	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In a single point, appellant David Kenneth Moore appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for forensic DNA testing.  We affirm.

	Appellant was convicted of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to deferred adjudication community supervision.  The trial court later adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to twelve years’ confinement.

	On April 10, 2002, appellant filed a “Request for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to Article 64, Code of Criminal Procedure” indicating that he wanted to submit a motion for DNA testing and asking that he be appointed counsel for that purpose.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-.05 (Vernon Supp. 2003).  The trial court appointed an attorney for appellant on April 12, 2002.  On September 27, 2002, the trial court denied the request for DNA testing. 

	Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request because the State’s response to his request indicates that the clothing the victim put on after the assault “arguably yielded DNA evidence.”  The State replies that there is no evidence containing biological material to be tested because the assault occurred on January 24 or 25, 1997 and the victim did not report the assault until March 1, 1997.

	A convicted person may request that DNA evidence containing biological material be tested.  Id. art. 64.01(a).  However, this request must “be accompanied by an affidavit, sworn to by the convicted person, containing statements of fact in support of the motion.”  Id.  The record before us contains no motion, nor any sworn affidavit, alleging facts supporting appellant’s request.  Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request.  See Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that because appellant failed to provide facts in support of his motion, court could not determine that trial court erred in denying DNA testing request).  We overrule appellant’s point and affirm the trial court’s order.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  May 1, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 773
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54938, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 773 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93323-93325, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 773.7 Review of permit applications. ( a ) The regulatory authority will review an application for a permit, revision, or renewal; written comments and objections submitted; and records of any informal conference or hearing held on the application and issue a written decision, within a reasonable time set by the regulatory authority, either granting, requiring modification of, or denying the application. If an informal conference is held under § 773.6(c) of this part, the decision will be made within 60 days of the close of the conference.
( b ) The applicant for a permit or revision of a permit shall have the burden of establishing that his application is in compliance with all the requirements of the regulatory program.
[48 FR 44391, Sept. 28, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 79663, Dec. 19, 2000; 72 FR 68029, Dec. 3, 2007; 81 FR 93323, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54937, Nov. 17, 2017]
#### TRAINER, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Michael Trainer against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. J. M. Ward, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH

N O

. 2

- 0 9

- 2 6 9

- C V

S A I L S T A R U S A , I N C

. A P P E L L A N T
V

. S A M A H A E N T E R P R I S E S , I N C

. A P P E L L E E D / B / A C R Y S T A L C L E A N E R S

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

F R O M T H E 1 7 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

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

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1 

### O N R E H E A R I N G A N D J U D G M E N T O N R E H E A R I N G

- - - - - - - - - - - - H a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ j o i n t m o t i o n t o m o d i f y o r c l a r i f y o u r o r i g i n a l

m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n , w e g r a n t t h e m o t i o n , w i t h d r a w o u r m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n

a n d j u d g m e n t o f O c t o b e r 8 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d s u b s t i t u t e t h e f o l l o w i n g .

1 ... S e e T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 7

. 4

.W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ a g r e e d m o t i o n , i n w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s a s k

t h i s c o u r t “ t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t a s t o S a i l S t a r a n d r e m a n d t o t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. . . f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ’

a g r e e m e n t

. ” T h e r e f o r e , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e m e r i t s , w e s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l , a n d r e m a n d t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r
p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ’ a g r e e m e n t

. S e e T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 2

. 1 ( a ) ( 2 )

. C o s t s o f t h e a p p e a l s h a l l b e p a i d b y t h e p a r t y i n c u r r i n g s a m e , f o r w h i c h
l e t e x e c u t i o n i s s u e . S e e T e x . R

. A p p . P

. 4 2

. 1 ( d )

.

P E R C U R I A M

P A N E L : M C C O Y , J

. ; C A Y C E , C

. J

. ; a n d M E I E R , J

. D E L I V E R E D : N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 9

2
#### BELT v. LYNN.

No. 12003.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 12, 1954.

Decided March 18, 1954.

*432Mr. Charles B. Sullivan, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant.

No brief or appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

■ This is an appeal from an order of the District Court declining to appoint a collector of the assets of the estate of Worthington H. Holton, deceased.

■ In 1949, Holton brought an action in the District Court, and obtained judgment. Appeal was taken to this court (No. 11,169). Cf. Belt v. Holton, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 148, 197 F.2d 579. While it was pending, Holton, who had become a resident and domiciliary of the State of Virginia, died in that State. We postponed hearing of the case pending the appointment of a legal representative of Holton’s estate. Application to the District Court for appointment of a collector followed. The application was denied without prejudice, for the reason that primary jurisdiction was with the appropriate court of Fairfax County, Virginia. It appeared that a document purporting to be a will had been found, and that the person named as executor therein (Mr. Lynn, appellee here) had filed the will with the clerk of the court at Fairfax County, Virginia, but had taken no further proceedings thereunder. Lynn alleged that Holton left no estate to be administered in Virginia.

 We think that under these circumstances the District Court should have appointed a collector, to gather and protect any assets of the deceased in the District of Columbia. We make no comment, of course, on the merits of the case now pending here (No. 11,169). It is enough to say that protection should be given to whatever interest the deceased may have in the property there involved. The failure of interested parties to take steps in Virginia should not be allowed to thwart that protection. The governing statute grants broad authority to appoint a collector: it contains no requirement that, in the case of a non-resident, appointment here must await action by his executor in his home state. . D.C.Code, Tit. 20, § 401 (1951). Of course, “On the granting of letters testamentary or of administration the power of any such collector shall cease * * * and the executor or administrator may be permitted to prosecute any suit commenced by said collector * * D.C.Code, Tit. 20, § 404 (1951). See Buck v. Putnam, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 295, 146 F.2d 662.

For these reasons, the order of the District Court will be

Reversed.
#### § 762.5 Definitions.

For purposes of this part:

*Fragile lands* means areas containing natural, ecologic, scientific, or esthetic resources that could be significantly damaged by surface coal mining operations. Examples of fragile lands include valuable habitats for fish or wildlife, critical habitats for endangered or threatened species of animals or plants, uncommon geologic formations, paleontological sites, National Natural Landmarks, areas where mining may result in flooding, environmental corridors containing a concentration of ecologic and esthetic features, and areas of recreational value due to high environmental quality.

*Historic lands* means areas containing historic, cultural, or scientific resources. Examples of historic lands include archeological sites, properties listed on or eligible for listing on a State or National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, properties having religious or cultural significance to Native Americans or religious groups, and properties for which historic designation is pending.

*Natural hazard lands* means geographic areas in which natural conditions exist which pose or, as a result of surface coal mining operations, may pose a threat to the health, safety or welfare of people, property or the environment, including areas subject to landslides, cave-ins, large or encroaching sand dunes, severe wind or soil erosion, frequent flooding, avalanches and areas of unstable geology.

*Renewable resource lands* means geographic areas which contribute significantly to the long-range productivity of water supply or of food or fiber products, such lands to include aquifers and aquifer recharge areas.

*Substantial legal and financial commitments in a surface coal mining operation* means significant investments that have been made on the basis of a long-term coal contract in power plants, railroads, coal-handling, preparation, extraction or storage facilities, and other capital-intensive activities. Costs of acquiring the coal in place, or the right to mine it alone without other significant investments, as described above, are not sufficient to constitute substantial legal and financial commitments.

[48 FR 41350, Sept. 14, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 18795, May 19, 1987; 53 FR 26584, July 13, 1988]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9619 

To amend the International Organizations Immunities Act to extend certain 

privileges and immunities to the European Organization for Nuclear Research. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself and Mr. FOSTER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the International Organizations Immunities Act 

to extend certain privileges and immunities to the European Organization for Nuclear Research. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Science 

5 Through Diplomacy Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9619 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNI2 TIES TO THE CONSEIL EUROPEEN POUR LA 

3 RECHERCHE NUCLEAIRE (CERN; THE EURO4 PEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RE5 SEARCH). 

6 The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 

7 U.S.C. 288 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following new section: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 21. Under such terms and conditions as the 

10 President shall determine, the President is authorized to 

11 extend the provisions of this title to the European Organi12 zation for Nuclear Research (CERN) in the same manner, 

13 to the same extent, and subject to the same conditions, 

14 as it may be extended to a public international organiza15 tion in which the United States participates pursuant to 

16 any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress 

17 authorizing such participation or making an appropriation 

18 for such participation.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### KEEGAN, Respondent, v. EINSTEIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Action by Mary Keegan against Jacob A. Einstein.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.