alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2023114EN.01000601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/6 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11076 – TOTALENERGIES / TOTAL EREN)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 114/05)

1.

On 17 March 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023114EN.01000601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TotalEnergies SE (‘TotalEnergies’, France), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Total Eren Holding (‘Total Eren’, France), currently jointly controlled by TotalEnergies and New Eren SA. |

TotalEnergies will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Total Eren.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TotalEnergies is a vertically integrated international energy company involved in all sectors of the oil and gas industry, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Total Eren develops, finances, builds and operates renewable energy plants worldwide. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2023114EN.01000601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

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. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11076 – TOTALENERGIES / TOTAL EREN

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 |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2023114EN.01000601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2023114EN.01000601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1101-19 Nozzles; flow rate and direction.

The nozzles of each dry powder chemical system shall be capable of discharging all powder within 1 minute after actuation of the system and such nozzles shall be directed so as to minimize the effect of ventilation upon fire control.
Exhibit
32.1









CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
connection with the Annual Report of Universal Detection Technology (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacques Tizabi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss..1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.










Date:
April 15, 2010







By: /s/ Jacques
Tizabi


Jacques
Tizabi,


Chief
Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
(No. 91-CC-2932

#### Ronald Seats, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 6, 1994.*

Ronald Seats, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Wendall Hayes and Verne Denting, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for Respondent.

*419OPINION

Sommer, C.J.

This is a prisoners claim for lost property. The parties agree that the property was lost while in the exclusive possession of the State. When the Claimant was transferred from one institution to another, an inventoried box of his property was missing and never found. The State admits liability under the doctrine of *Doubling v. State*(1976), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1.

The only dispute is over the value of the property that was lost. Items lost included a color television set, court transcripts, pencils (15), law books (3), eyeglasses, books (6), playing cards (2), briefcases (2), a magazine, cigarettes (23 packs), photographs of family (8), frames (2).

The States position is that the loss is the value at the time of loss, not the replacement cost. The State argues that the value of the present lost items was minimal. For example, the State contends that the television, which was two years old, was worth nothing due to depreciation. The State also assigned a flea market value to the books and assigned minimal or no value to the other items.

This Court has ruled in *Hamilton v. State*(1992), 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 324, that a prisoners situation is somewhat different than a civilian. When a prisoner loses an item, he must generally go to the commissary to purchase a replacement at the commissary’s prices, and due to a prisoner’s generally *420impoverished condition he often has to do without the lost item if not reimbursed adequately. An excessive assignment of depreciation effectively deprives the prisoner of his property. If the prisoner had a working television set when he was transferred, he should be entitled to a working television set when he arrives. If it does not work or is missing, he has nothing. *Hamilton, supra.*

Due to the prisoners situation, his testimony as to the commissary cost or original cost is good practical evidence of the value of an item, though certainly some depreciation may be allowed when warranted. *Hamilton, supra.*The values as established by the prisoners own testimony are not speculative, but are to be weighed by the Commissioner in conjunction with all the evidence before him including the credibility and demeanor of the parties.

The Commissioner found at the hearing that the value of the lost items were $505.45. We will adopt the Commissioners finding.

It is therefore ordered that the Claimant be paid $505.45 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Devcon International Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Donald L. Smith, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                         
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Donald L. Smith, Jr.
|                        |  | Donald L. Smith, Jr.    
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer 



Note:
This certification is being furnished, not filed, as exhibit 32.1
### **CHAPTER 707—HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION**

Sec.
70701.
Definitions.
70702.
Establishment of Commission.
70703.
Tasks of Commission.
70704.
Composition of Commission.
70705.
Powers of Commission.
70706.
Public meetings, information, and hearings.
70707.
Staff of Commission.
70708.
Compensation and travel expenses.
70709.
Security clearances for Commission members and staff.
70710.
Reporting requirements and termination.
### §4025a. Portability of professional licenses of servicemembers and their spouses

#### (a) In general

In any case in which a servicemember or the spouse of a servicemember has a covered license and such servicemember or spouse relocates his or her residency because of military orders for military service to a location that is not in the jurisdiction of the licensing authority that issued the covered license, such covered license shall be considered valid at a similar scope of practice and in the discipline applied for in the jurisdiction of such new residency for the duration of such military orders if such servicemember or spouse—

(1) provides a copy of such military orders to the licensing authority in the jurisdiction in which the new residency is located;

(2) remains in good standing with—

(A) the licensing authority that issued the covered license; and

(B) every other licensing authority that has issued to the servicemember or the spouse of a servicemember a license valid at a similar scope of practice and in the discipline applied in the jurisdiction of such licensing authority; 1

(3) submits to the authority of the licensing authority in the new jurisdiction for the purposes of standards of practice, discipline, and fulfillment of any continuing education requirements.

#### (b) Interstate licensure compacts

If a servicemember or spouse of a servicemember is licensed and able to operate in multiple jurisdictions through an interstate licensure compact, with respect to services provided in the jurisdiction of the interstate licensure compact by a licensee covered by such compact, the servicemember or spouse of a servicemember shall be subject to the requirements of the compact or the applicable provisions of law of the applicable State and not this section.

#### (c) Covered license defined

In this section, the term "covered license" means a professional license or certificate—

(1) that is in good standing with the licensing authority that issued such professional license or certificate;

(2) that the servicemember or spouse of a servicemember has actively used during the two years immediately preceding the relocation described in subsection (a); and

(3) that is not a license to practice law.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title VII, §705A, as added Pub. L. 117–333, §19(a), Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6137.)

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by "and".
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

       Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): January 27, 2005

                            MS Structured Asset Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

          Delaware                      333-101155               13-4026700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction         (Commission File           (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)                   Number)            Identification No.)

1585 Broadway, Second Floor
New York, New York                                                  10036
Attention: Madhu Philips
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                 (Zip Code)


        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520

                                 Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)




<PAGE>



Section 9     Financial Statements and Exhibits

      Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits

               Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

               Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
                                 Hamilton LLP

               Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
                                 (included in Exhibit 5.1)



<PAGE>




                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: February 2, 2005

                                                     MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
                                                     (Registrant)


                                                     By: /s/ Madhu Philips
                                                        -----------------------
                                                     Name:  Madhu Philips
                                                     Title: Vice President


<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
                  (included in Exhibit 5.1)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,455
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,851
<INVENTORY>                                      2,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,420
<PP&E>                                         770,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                 396,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 444,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,372
<BONDS>                                        101,302
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,442
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   444,532
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,513
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,280
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,280
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Centerpoint Houston Electric, LLC v. 5433 Westheimer, LP; 5433 

Westheimer, GP LLC and Songy 5433 Westheimer GP LLC

Appellate case number: 01-15-00335-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-75635

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

The clerk’s record was due May 11, 2015. On the same date, Centerpoint filed a motion 

to extend time to file the record, requesting 30 days to file the record. This Court granted the 

motion and extended the deadline to June 11, 2015. Although the reporter’s record was filed, the 

District Clerk advised this court on June 15, 2015, that the clerk’s record had been prepared, but 

that payment arrangements had not been made. On October 8, 2015, this Court issued a notice 

threatening dismissal for nonpayment for the clerk’s record unless Centerpoint filed written 

evidence showing payment or payment arrangements had been made by October 23, 2015. No 

response was filed. On November 18, 2015, appellees filed a motion to dismiss, based on the 

nonpayment for the clerk’s record. On December 1, 2015, Centerpoint finally responded, 

requesting another 30 days for the clerk’s record to be filed and not attaching written proof of 

payment.

We grant Centerpoint’s motion and grant an extension until December 11, 2015, to file 

the clerk’s record. No further extensions will be granted. Given the existing delays caused by 

not filing the clerk’s record for more than 6 months, any further extension motions in this case

for the record or the briefs will be denied absent exceptionally compelling reasons. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 3, 2015
Description of Compensatory Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS 
 BETWEEN REGISTRANT AND NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
  
 Each director who is not an employee of the Registrant receives an annual retainer fee of $20,000, plus $1,000 for each Board of Directors
and Board committee meeting attended. The non-employee Chairman of the Board receives a retainer fee of $90,000 (in lieu of any other annual retainer, committee chair or attendance fees). The director who chairs the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors receives an additional annual retainer fee of $15,000. The directors who chair the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors each receive an additional annual retainer fee of $5,000. Under
the Registrant’s Omnibus Stock Plan, non-employee directors may elect to receive, in lieu of all or a portion of the foregoing fees, shares of the Registrant’s common stock based on the fair market value of the stock on the date the fees
would have been paid. Each non-employee director also receives nonqualified stock options under the Registrant’s Omnibus Stock Plan, as set forth in that Plan. Each non-employee director is reimbursed for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
that such director and his or her spouse incurs attending Board meetings and functions, and is authorized, subject to certain requirements and limitations, to use the Registrant’s fractionally-owned aircraft for personal travel.
#### McDaniel *vs.*THE STATE.

[indictment job gaming.]

1. *What constitutes public house, public*place, *or outhouse where people resort.*— A back-house, or privy, “ used by the pupils of the school of a country school house, and attached to the premises,” is not, during the period of vacation, while the main building is not used for the purposes of the school, either a public house, a public place, or an outhouse where people resort, within section 3243 of the Code.

From the Circuit Court of Bibb.

Tried before the Hon. Porter King.

The indictment in this case charged the prisoner and another, in several different counts, with playing “ at a game with cards, or dice, or some device or substitute therefor,” at each one of the places specified in the statute. *391“It was admitted oil the trial,” as the bill of executions Btates, “that the defendant played a game of cards in said county, within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, in a back-house, commonly called a ‘ necessary,’ or ‘privy,’ which was attached to the premises, and was used by the pupils of the school of a country school-house, or academy; there being vacation in the school at the time of the playing, and the main building being then unused for the purposes of the school. The court charged the jury, that under the evidence, if they believed it, the defendant would be guilty; to which charge the defendant excepted.”

Ym. R. Smith, for the prisoner.

M. A. Baldwin, Attorney-General, *contra.*

R. W. WALKER, J.

The bill of exceptions is somewhat obscure ; but we do not understand from it that the back-house, in which the playing took place, was attached to, or under the same roof with the school-house. The statement that ‘ it was attached to the premises,’ was, as we presume, designed to convey the idea, that it was situated on the same lot, or within the same enclosure, with the school-house. Placing this construction on the bill of exceptions, we do not think that the back-house referred to was, at *the time*when the playing took place, either a public house, a public place, or an outhouse where people resort. It is obvious that it does not fall within any of the other prohibitions of section 3243 of the Code.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1103-7 Electrical components; permissibility requirements. The electrical components of each automatic fire sensor and warning device system shall: ( a ) Remain functional when the power circuits are deenergized as required by § 75.706; and
( b ) Be provided with protection against ignition of methane or coal dust when the electrical power is deenergized as required by § 75.313, but these components shall be permissible or intrinsically safe if installed in a return airway.
[37 FR 16546, Aug. 16, 1972, as amended at 57 FR 20929, May 15, 1992]
###### Editorial Note on Part 784

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54958, 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 784 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93355, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 784.1 Scope.

This part provides the minimum requirements for the Secretary's approval of regulatory program provisions for the mining operations and reclamation plans portions of applications for permits for underground mining activities, except to the extent that different requirements for those plans are established under 30 CFR part 785.

[44 FR 15366, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 81 FR 93355, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54958, Nov. 17, 2017]