alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017090EN.01000102.xml

| 23.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8323 — AT&T/Time Warner)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 90/02)

On 14 March 2017, 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:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8323. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8323. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
#### 2808.605 Exceptions.
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:250
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:251
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:252
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:253
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:254
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:255
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:256
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:257
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-5 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:258
#### 3401.403 Individual deviations.

An individual deviation from the FAR or the EDAR must be approved by the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE).
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Programs
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## Legislation

                - Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title VII, Part D   20 U.S.C. 1140-1140d

## Regulations

                - There are no program-specific regulations for this program.
                - Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)  in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99

Institutional Service Home

   Printable view  Last Modified: 01/25/2017How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Transforming Teaching
- Family and Community Engagement
- Early Learning

 
No Related Topics Found*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
#### 32.1105 Assignment of claims.

The use of EFT payment methods is not a substitute for a properly executed assignment of claims in accordance with Subpart 32.8. EFT information that shows the ultimate recipient of the transfer to be other than the contractor, in the absence of a proper assignment of claims, is considered to be incorrect EFT information within the meaning of the “Suspension of Payment” paragraphs of the EFT clauses at 52.232-33 and 52.232-34.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-KSB of National Property Investors 4 (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March
	31, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March
	31, 2008  





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## Key Staff

**Dr. Robin Dabney** Competition Manager and Program LeadModeling and Simulation ProgramPhone:	202-453-7908Email:	Robin.Dabney@ed.gov

**Mailing Address:**Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary EducationU.S. Department of Education, OPEModeling and Simulation Program400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Mail Stop LBJ-2B162Washington, DC 20202**E-mail:**modelingandsimulation@ed.gov

FIPSE Home
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>  0000081027
<NAME>  PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 004
<NAME>  PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                            PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>              1,331,331
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>               25,466
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                   118,030
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   5,265
<OTHER-ASSETS>                            51,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,531,478
<COMMON>                                 157,230
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                180,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                      166,922
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>           504,152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                5,286
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     419,440
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                        20,392
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                 30,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>             10,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>           542,208
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>          1,531,478
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                588,385
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                      37,173
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               457,468
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               494,641
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                   93,744
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           920
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>            94,664
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  27,208
<NET-INCOME>                              67,456
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  160
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>             67,296
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  45,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                 18,209
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                   117,140
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.00


</TABLE>
#### 247.370 DD Form 1384, Transportation Control and Movement Document.

The transportation office of the shipping activity prepares the DD Form 1384 to accompany all shipments made through a military air or water port, in accordance with DoD 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation, Part II, Chapter 203. A link to this document is available in PGI 247.370.

[75 FR 51418, Aug. 20, 2010]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Giamanco, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 23, 1977, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. We find that certain errors and omissions made during the court’s charge may have confused the jury about the burden of proof in this case. As the evidence against the appellant was wholly circumstantial, the court should have charged that the inference of guilt must flow naturally from the circumstantial evidence and that every hypothesis other than guilt must be excluded to a moral certainty. Such language is preferred because it best insures that unwarranted conclusions will not be drawn (see *People v Smith,*63 AD2d 661). It was also improper for the court to note that its instructions on circumstantial evidence had been given at defense counsel’s request (see *People v McLucas,*15 NY2d 167; *People v Strawder,*54 AD2d 743). Finally, the jury was never advised that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt attached to each material element of the crimes charged. This omission, combined with the court’s failure to explain "reasonable doubt”, was error (see CPL 70.20; *People v Newman,*46 NY2d 126). The cumulative effect of the foregoing errors served to deprive appellant of a fair trial. We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be lacking in merit. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLUMBUS ALLEN, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS,

 Appellee,

ADAM CHRISTIANSON, SheriffCoroner; GINA LEGURIA, Policy

Manager; WILLIAM DUNCAN, Cpt.;

BRENDA SUAREZ, Lieutenant;

RONALD LLOYD, Lieutenant; GREGG

CLIFTON, Lieutenant; C. BLAKE,

Sergeant; GALLES, Sergeant; ERNIE

RADZA, Sergeant; V. L. TRUFFA,

Sergeant,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15151

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00930-AWI-JLT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 11, 2012

FILED

JUL 13 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Columbus Allen appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his

pro se civil rights complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

reverse and remand.

Allen’s amended complaint states a claim against prison dentist Dr. Cheung

for constitutionally inadequate medical care. Allen alleges in his complaint that

Dr. Cheung refused for months to treat Allen’s serious dental problem based on a

series of “ephemeral and contradictory” reasons. Taking those allegations as true

and drawing all inferences in Allen’s favor, Allen’s complaint establishes that Dr.

Cheung purposefully delayed providing Allen necessary dental treatment and

therefore acted with deliberate indifference to Allen’s serious medical need. See

Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989); Clement v. Gomez, 298

F.3d 898, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2002). The magistrate judge’s conclusion, as adopted in

full by the district court, that delays in Allen’s treatment were “beyond Dr.

Cheung’s control” misconstrued Allen’s allegations and improperly assumed at the

pleading stage that Dr. Cheung’s assertions about why he failed to treat Allen were

true. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011). 
3

The district court also erred in dismissing with prejudice the claims from

Allen’s complaint that are unrelated to his claim for inadequate medical care

against Dr. Cheung. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 expressly prohibits a

district court from dismissing a plaintiff’s claims for the sole reason that the

plaintiff erroneously joined those claims in a single action against different

defendants. See Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913

(9th Cir. 1964). The district court here violated that rule by dismissing Allen’s

remaining claims with prejudice simply because they were unrelated to his

inadequate dental care claim and alleged against different defendants. On remand,

the district court should instead remedy Allen’s misjoinder by severing any claims

or defendants unrelated to Allen’s inadequate dental care claim. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 21.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
|   | • | fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              | /s/      James Traicoff                                                      |
|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              |                                                                         |
| Name:   | James      Traicoff                                                          |
| Title:            | Treasurer      and Chief Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer) |
| Date:             | November      25, 2009                                                       |

----
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00261 -CV In re Am eric an In ter national Specialty Lin es Insurance Com pany OR IG IN A L PR OC E E D IN GFR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator Amer ican International Specialty L ines Ins u rance Company ’s petition for writ of manda

mus is denied, and its motion for temporar y relief is dismi ssed. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 52.8(a) , 52.10.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Pember

ton Filed: Oc tober 17, 2008
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To: YDI Wireless, Inc.

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30450, 333-65568, 333-73318, and 333-104481) of
YDI Wireless, Inc. of our reports dated January 23, 2004 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of YDI
Wireless, Inc. and Subsidiaries appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ BDO Seidman, L.L.P.

BDO Seidman, L.L.P.
Bethesda, Maryland
February 19, 2004
Tehachapi Unified School District (District) agreed to resolve a  Title IX complaint alleging sexual and gender-based harassment of a gender  non-conforming male student (Student), who attended Jacobsen Middle School.  The Student committed suicide in September 2010, and was in the eighth grade  at the time of his death. OCR investigated the complaint, and the Justice Department’s  Civil Rights Division collaborated with OCR on the resolution with the District.  The investigation found that the Student was targeted for harassment over two  school years because of his nonconformity with gender stereotypes. OCR and  the Justice Department determined that the harassment, which included ongoing  and escalating verbal, physical, and sexual harassment by other students at  school, was sufficiently severe, pervasive and persistent to interfere with  the Student’s educational opportunities, and that despite having notice of  the harassment, the District did not adequately investigate or otherwise respond  to it. The District signed a Resolution Agreement in which it agreed to take  all reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in the District are  not subject to sex-based harassment, and to respond promptly and appropriately  to all reports of harassment. Specifically, the District will (1) revise its  policies and regulations related to sex-based harassment and retain a consultant  to provide mandatory trainings on such harassment for all students, administrators,  teachers, counselors and other staff who interact with students; (2) assess  the presence of sex-based harassment through annual school climate surveys,  (3) form an advisory committee of administrators, students and parents to advise  the district on school climate issues related to sex-based harassment, (4)  take appropriate corrective action with respect to any employee who failed  to respond appropriately to notice harassment of the Student, (5) develop a  District-wide monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the district’s  anti-harassment efforts, and (6) provide semi-annual compliance reports to  OCR and the Justice Department for the next five years. ***Read  the Press Release | Read the Resolution Letter***PDF (205K)    | ***Read    the Resolution Agreement***PDF (116K)

Top
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-42836, 33-61717 and 333-27899) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan and the 1991 Directors’ Stock Option Plan, of our report dated March 3, 2004, withrespect to the financial statements of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended January 3, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Reno, Nevada 

March 31, 2004
Overview | **Guidelines** | Information Correction Requests and Appeals | Contact

----

## Guidelines

- Guidelines
- Information Correction Requests and Appeals 
- Review

If a requester is not satisfied with the Department's decision on the request (including the corrective action, if any), he or she may appeal to the Department's Chief Data Officer (CDO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Department's decision. This administrative appeal must include a copy of the initial request, a copy of the Department's decision, and a letter explaining why he or she believes the Department's decision was inadequate, incomplete, or in error.

This appeal shall be submitted to the following address: InformationQualityAppeal@ed.gov. Requesters should indicate that they are submitting an Information Quality Appeal in the subject line of the e-mail.

The Department will ensure that all appeals undergo an impartial review and that those individual(s) reviewing and responding to the appeal were not involved in the review and initial response to the request for correction. In the case of appeals related to influential information, the Department’s CDO will consult with the Department’s Evaluation Officer and SO. The Department may share draft responses to the appeal with OMB prior to release to the requester. The Department will respond to all appeals within 120 calendar days of the CDO’s receipt of the appeal, or longer if the Department receives the concurrence of the party that requested the correction.

----

- Previous
- Table of Contents
Exhibit
      32(d)








**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light Company (the “Company”) for the
      period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III, Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial 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), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      5, 2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.