alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         406,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  855,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                   366,502
<INVENTORY>                                  5,294,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,637,145
<PP&E>                                       7,318,714
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,206,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,000,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,493,619
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,851,000
<COMMON>                                       478,798
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,918,147)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,000,043
<SALES>                                    (2,022,830)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,922,541
<CGS>                                        3,473,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,072,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             611,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,152,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,184,497)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,184,497)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)
        

</TABLE>
#### The City of East Liverpool *v.*Dawson.

*Municipal corporations*— Intoxicating *liquors*— Unlawful *to keep, store or use in certain places*— Constitutionality *of ordinance*— *Section*9, *Article XV, and Section 3, Article XVIII, Constitution.*

(No. 16474

Decided June *22,*1920.)

Error .to the Court of Appeals of Columbiana county.

*Mr. R. G. Thompson,*city solicitor; *Mr, J. A. White*and *Mr. Charles M. Earhart,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Blaine H. Cochran*and *Mr. George T. Farrell,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed, and the judgment of the court of common pleas of Columbiana county be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, for the reason that Ordinance No. 1664 of the-City of East Liverpool, declaring it unlawful to keep, store, or use intoxicating liquors in certain places, is a valid exercise of municipal power under the grant of Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and not in conflict with Section 9, Article XV, of said Constitution.

*Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and that of common pleas affirmed.*

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Johnson, Wanamaker, Robinson and Merrell, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
#### SAILBOAT KEY, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. STATE ex rel. Frank C. GARDNER et al., Respondents.

No. 45873.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 4, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 295 So.2d 658.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and OVERTON, JJ., dissent.
HomeDirect Line for American Business...Investment Opportunities in Egypt’s Processed Foods Industry

# 									Investment Opportunities in Egypt’s Processed Foods Industry							

Direct Line Event

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

July 8, 2021

**Topic:**Investment Opportunities in Egypt’s Processed Foods Industry

**Host:** Ambassador Jonathan Cohen

**Guest Speakers:** Representatives from the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies and senior business leaders

**Date and Time:**Thursday, July 8, 10:00 a.m. EDT (4:00 p.m. local)****

**Brief Description of Call:**Join Ambassador Jonathan Cohen, the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies, and senior business leaders to learn more about investment opportunities in Egypt’s growing processed foods industry. U.S. companies can benefit from rising demand in the region’s most populous country, as well as the potential to export from Egypt to Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and North America.

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDirect LineEgypt

Back to Top
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4074 — Magna/CTS) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 334 , 30/12/2005 P. 0030 - 0030 *

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4074 — Magna/CTS)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 334/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. On 19 December 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] by which the undertaking Magna International Inc. ("Magna"; Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking CTS Fahrzeug-Dachsysteme GmbH ("CTS"; Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Magna: diversified global automotive supplier;

- for CTS: designs and manufctures convertible roof systems for the automotive industry.

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. 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. 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 (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4074 — Magna/CTS, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

--------------------------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

July 06, 2015

Hon. Anne Lorentzen

District Clerk
901 Leopard, Suite 313
Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 15

- 00131

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13

- CR

- 2681

- G
Style: Jesse Garcia v. The State of Texas

The j udgment of the trial court was DISMISSED by this Court on the 21 st day of May,

2015. The mandate is enclosed.

Tex R. App. P. 51.2(a)(1) provides that the clerk of the trial court shall send an
acknowledgment to the clerk of the appellate court of the receipt of the mandate. Please review
the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(b) regarding the issuance of a capias in cases in which
the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the defendant is not in custody.

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of the mandate and submit through
the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Chris Iles (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
Hon. Mark Skurka (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate in cause no. 13

- 15

- 00131

- CR this

________ day of _________________, 201 5

. District/County Clerk,

By :____________________________
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with NATO Deputy Secretary General Geoană

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with NATO Deputy Secretary General Geoană							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

April 20, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met today in Brussels with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană.  Deputy Secretary Sherman shared U.S. priorities for the revision of NATO’s Strategic Concept, which will ensure that NATO remains ready to respond to the rapidly evolving 21st century security landscape.  The Deputy Secretary also discussed NATO’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its defenses against Russian aggression, as well as U.S. efforts to support Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s brutal and unprovoked invasion.

Tags

BelgiumBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaUkraine

Back to Top
# C_2006108EN.01002102.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006 — Service Station Veger v Commission

(Case T-238/99) (1)

1

(Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Action manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 108/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Service station V/H J.P. Veger (Maria Hoop, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. Brouwers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and H. Speyart initially, then G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.

1

---
# C_2006108EN.01003501.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/35

---

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Lofaro v Commission

(Case F-27/06)

(2006/C 108/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of 6 June 2005 to extend the applicant's probationary period by 6 months, of the decision of 28 September 2005 to dismiss him at the end of that period, and of the reports at the expiry of the probationary periods on which those two decisions are based; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of 6 June 2005 to extend the applicant's probationary period by 6 months, of the decision of 28 September 2005 to dismiss him at the end of that period, and of the reports at the expiry of the probationary periods on which those two decisions are based;

| — | So far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 23 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

So far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 23 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

| — | An order that the defendant is to pay the applicant, as compensation for the loss suffered, damages assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 85 473 for material loss and EUR 50 000 for non-material loss, such amounts to be increased or reduced as appropriate during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

An order that the defendant is to pay the applicant, as compensation for the loss suffered, damages assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 85 473 for material loss and EUR 50 000 for non-material loss, such amounts to be increased or reduced as appropriate during the proceedings;

| — | An order that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

An order that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former temporary agent at the Commission, was employed from 16 September 2004 until 15 September 2009 under a contract which provided for a probationary period of 6 months, in accordance with Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. Following an initial negative evaluation report, an extension of the probationary period by six months and a second negative evaluation report, the defendant ended that contract.

In his application, the applicant submits that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment. It is likewise alleged to have infringed the general principles which safeguard the right to dignity and to a defence and to have made superfluous critical comments.

---
#### Hugh R. LEE v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES.

No. 80-C-2844.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Hugh R. Lee, applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Natchitoches. 391 So.2d 37.

Denied.

DENNIS, BLANCHE and WATSON, JJ., would grant the writ.
Michigan 

Women 

In 

Municipal _,, , ^,, , 

Government /e.^^sisPsib 

cin c-iffilinteof Ihe Michigon Municipal l^aguu.l'O. l.Vw 1487.Ann Arl^>i-.MI 48]06 

' vPAHTMJ^NT Oh 

•:'AMSPOR17ii'ION 

•ViCKFTOPrRATlOMS 

^J^UoL^l^ ^ % X^ ^ / ^ 

yj^} ^ _yL4^ ^'•' ; 

^yyiM^^ y^rU^l ^ 

I 

.p. &, 

.C</<yi^A^' 

>^^;''7'2-fl'^tZ.''C^<^X.^.<i^ A^-rt-^ ^Oy-L-C^C^^^'^^-^-

^ & 7 ' 

•yp-L. L-tZ 

, 41^^^U1^'L^^-CJ^X ^ /Toc^-eX 

i-£^ -

(X^t-^-^^--^^^^^^ 

yUjJL^ X.^^-^^^ ^^^^ 

/ yi^K. ^ ^"JO -C-^^'>'
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       21
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2174
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               64
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        2110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2174
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 30415
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  28558
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              28558
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1433)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     27125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   324.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   324.25
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006096EN.01001002.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/10

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 — Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV v Commission

(Case T-282/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Control of concentration of undertakings - Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Concept of concentration - Creation of a dominant position - Authorisation subject to compliance with certain commitments - Principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 96/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (Le Cruquius, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P. Kreijger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, A. Nijenhuis, K. Wiedner and W. Mölls, and subsequently A. Nijenhuis, E. Gippini Fournier and A. Whelan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

:

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision 2003/756/EC of 26 June 2002, relating to a procedure pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2650 — Haniel/Cementbouw/JV (CVK)) (OJ 2003 L 282, p. 1, corrigendum published in OJ 2003 L 285, p. 52)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.

1

---
#### Nicholls *v.*The City of Cleveland.

*Constitutional law*— Municipal *corporations*— Traffic *ordinance*— *Duty of vehicles to stop, when*— Street *car discharging pas*sengers— *Sections i and 2, Article I, Constitution.*

(No. 16380

Decided January 27, 1920.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Howell, Roberts & Duncan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. S. FitzGerald,*director of law, and *Mr. John J. Sexton,*assistant police prosecutor, for defendant in error.

By the Court.

Plaintiff in error entered a plea of guilty in the municipal court of Cleveland to a charge of violating an ordinance governing traffic on the streets of that city, and sentence was imposed upon him under the terms of such ordinance. He *40thereupon filed a petition in error in the court of appeals, claiming that the ordinance upon which the charge is based is unconstitutional, being violative of Sections 1 and 2, Article I of the State Constitution, and also that the affidavit was insufficient to charge any offense under the ordinance. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the municipal court.

The ordinance in question requires a person in charge of any vehicle driven or propelled upon the streets of the city of Cleveland to conform to certain rules of the road, which are therein set forth, one of which is that he shall stop such vehicle and remain at the rear of a street car which has stopped to take on or let off passengers, so as to allow passengers free passage between the street car and the curb, and shall cause his vehicle to remain standing until such street car has resumed motion, provided that in congested districts vehicles may pass street cars so stopping if they clear six feet from the lower step or running board of the street car and that such ordinance shall not apply to vehicles passing street cars headed in the opposite , direction.

A subsequent provision defines the words “congested districts” to mean the following: “Lorain avenue from West 25th Street to Fulton Road.”

The provisions of this ordinance constitute a reasonable and proper police regulation to control traffic and protect pedestrians. It is not invalidated, as claimed by the plaintiff in error, because it does not specify or require to be marked or designated the places where street cars may receive *41or discharge passengers; nor by reason of the requirement that such vehicle must remain standing until the street car resumes motion. The enforcement of the requirements of the ordinance will not constitute an unreasonable and unconstitutional interference with the liberty and rights of any citizen, nor deprive any citizen of equal protection and benefit of the law.

The court of appeals committed no error in holding that the ordinance in question is constitutional and that the affidavit was sufficient in form and statement to charge the plaintiff in error with violation thereof. The judgment of that court is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, .Wanamaker, Robinson and Merrell, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          53,834
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              62
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,925
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    249,682
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        893,470
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,246,669
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,033,957
<SHORT-TERM>                                    79,773
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,214
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,883
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,246,669
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 83,506
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,923
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,028
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                96,457
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              36,935
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,969
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           54,488
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  79
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 45,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,138
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      22,138
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.65
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,695
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,008
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   316
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                16,236
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,613
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,238
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,761
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            14,761
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>