alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 180/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 180 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 653 May 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 180

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 653 May 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 180/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10139 – DESFA / COPELOUZOU / DEPA / GASLOG / BTG / GASTRADE) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2022/C 180/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10218 – GAUSELMANN / GREENTUBE / JV) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 180/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10139 – DESFA / COPELOUZOU / DEPA / GASLOG / BTG / GASTRADE) (
  1
  )

1

1

2022/C 180/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10218 – GAUSELMANN / GREENTUBE / JV) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 180/03 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: — 0,00 % on 1 May 2022 — Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 180/03

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: — 0,00 % on 1 May 2022 — Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 180/04 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea | 4 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 180/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10629 – CSL / VIFOR PHARMA) (
  1
  ) | 14 |
| 2022/C 180/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10683 – APPLIED / TEMASEK / JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 15 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 180/04

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea

4

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 180/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10629 – CSL / VIFOR PHARMA) (
  1
  )

1

14

2022/C 180/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10683 – APPLIED / TEMASEK / JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

15

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                     OF THE

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                   AMNEX, INC.

               (Under Section 805 of the Business Corporation Law)


     The  undersigned,  being the  President  and  Secretary of AMNEX,  Inc., do
hereby certify and set forth:

     1. The name of the  corporation  is AMNEX,  Inc. (the  "Corporation").  The
Corporation was formed under the name NY-Tel Communications, Inc.

     2. The  Certificate of  Incorporation  of the  Corporation was filed by the
Department of State on March 15, 1985.

     3. The  Certificate  of  Incorporation  is hereby  amended to increase  the
number of common shares which the Corporation shall have authority to issue from
40,000,000 to 70,000,000.

     4. Section 4(a) to the  Certificate of  Incorporation  of the  Corporation,
related to the number and kind of shares the Corporation is authorized to issue,
is hereby amended to read as follows:

          "4(a).  The aggregate  number of shares of stock which the Corporation
          shall  have  the   authority   to  issue  is  Seventy-   Five  Million
          (75,000,000) of which Seventy Million  (70,000,000) are Common Shares,
          $.001 par value per share, and Five Million  (5,000,000) are Preferred
          Shares, $.001 par value per share."


<PAGE>



     5. The manner in which this Amendment of the  Certificate of  Incorporation
was  authorized  was by the vote of the Board of  Directors  of the  Corporation
followed  by the vote of the  holders of a majority  of the  outstanding  shares
entitled to vote thereon at a meeting of shareholders.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   the  undersigned  have  executed  and  signed  this
Certificate  this 14th day of May,  1997,  and affirm the  statements  contained
herein as true under the penalties of perjury.

                                         /s/ Kenneth G. Baritz
                                         Kenneth G. Baritz, Chairman


                                         /s/ Amy S. Gross
                                         Amy S. Gross, Secretary





K:\WPDOC\CORP\AMNEX\CERTAMND\70MILL2.M97


<PAGE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LENNOX NATIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, LLC, Appellant,

v.

BARRY CLAIRE and STAC I CLAIRE
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D2 0

- 2797

[ December 22, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County, Keathan B. Frink , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19

- 000502 (12)

.

Benjamin L. Bedard and Shell i A. Healy of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC , West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Matthew E. Haynes of Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath , West Palm Beach, for appellees.

F ORST

, J.

Appellant Lennox National Account Services, LLC (“Defendant”) appeal s the denial of its motion to tax costs following the voluntary dismissal of

the tort action by a ppellees Barry Claire and Staci Claire (“Plaintiffs”)

. Defendant argues it was entitled to an award of taxable costs pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d). We agree and reverse accordingly

.

Barry Claire was allegedly injured while shopping at a store. At the time, Defendan t’s technicians were w orking on the store’s rooftop

. Plaintiff s filed a complaint for negligence and loss of consortium against several parties, including Defend ant. Subs equently, Defend ant moved for summary judgment and the motion was set for a hear ing

. A few hours before the hearing

, Plaintiff s filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as it relate d to Defendant

. Following the dismissal, Defendant filed a motion to tax costs against Plaintiffs . The motion was summarily

denied by the trial court.2 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 (d) provides in pertinent part that “[c] osts in any action dismissed under this rule shall be assessed and judgment for costs entered in that action, once the action is concluded as to the party seeking taxation of costs. ” (emphasis added). We have held that “[r]ule 1.420(d) is unambiguous

— costs are to be assessed in the

action that is the subject of the voluntary dismissal.” Bis v. U.S. Bank Nat ’l

Ass’n , 172 So. 3d 971, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Wilson v. Rose Printing Co. , 624 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1993)); see also Fleet Servs

. Corp.

v. Reise , 857 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ( “ When [the plaintiff] filed its voluntary dismissal, [the defendant] became entitled to an award of

‘ costs ’ pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d). ”).

Thus

, we reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Defendant’s

motion to tax costs and a hearing on the amount of costs to be awarded to

Defendant

.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

G ROSS and K UNTZ

, J J

., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30443

Conference Calendar

 

CRAIG A. SINGLETON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

HARRY CONNICK; WILLARD HILL, JR.; 

TYRONE VAIL; JOSEPH WILLIAMS; DONALD POKE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-231-L

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

December 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Craig Singleton appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted. Singleton’s attempt to

incorporate by reference his district court habeas corpus

petition is insufficient to preserve error. See Perillo v.

Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 443 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996). Singleton has not

filed an appellate brief containing legal argument explaining why

the district court’s decision was error. He has therefore waived
No. 01-30443

-2-

that issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225

(5th Cir. 1993).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 99

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               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 IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward J. Weisberger, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

          (1). The Report fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 14, 2002          By: /s/ EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
      ________________             ___________________________
                                       EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Order entered December 4, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01117
- CV
JESUS ANTONIO GONZAL EZ, Appellant

V. BLUE CIEL TOWER DEVE LOPMENT, LTD., ET AL. , Appelle e s

On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 01134



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 2, 2019 unopposed motion for a forty

- five day extension of time to file his brief on the merits. We GRANT th e motion to the extent that appellant shall file his brief by Monday, January 13, 2020 . We caution appellant that further extension requests in this accelerated appeal will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37605

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

DARYL EUGENE RAYMOND

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished O pinion No. 694

Filed: November 3 , 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three y ears , for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, a repeated offense

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Daryl Eugene Raymond pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and/or

drugs, a repeated offense . Idaho Code § § 18

- 8004 and 18

- 8005(7) . The district court sentenced

Raymond to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. Raymond appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive

sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's dis cretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2

15 (Ct. App. 199 1); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Raymond ’s judgment of conviction an d sentence are affirmed.
#### Morris Sophian, Appellant, *v.*Michael Henig, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan.

Rosenthal & Rosenthal, for appellant.

S. Horkimer, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

As the record does not show that the defendant was a resident of the city of New York, the jurisdictional facts do not appear, and the judgment must, accordingly, be reversed. Willis v. Parker, 30 Misc. Rep. 750.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gormah, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, without costs.
#### § 1071.302 Reply.

Within 15 days after service of an answer, the applicant may file a reply. If the reply is based on any alleged facts not already in the record of the proceeding, the applicant shall include with the reply either supporting affidavits or a request for further proceedings under § 1071.305 of this part.
# L_2013226EN.01S00302.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 226/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 226/s3

---

NOTE TO READERS — WAY OF REFERRING TO ACTS

As of 1 July 2013 the way of referring to acts has changed.

During a transitional period this new practice will coexist with the previous one.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1
       
<S>                                              <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                                256863
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         161488
<ALLOWANCES>                                           88969
<INVENTORY>                                            17615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      368300
<PP&E>                                                284718
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (261461)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        498782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 129989
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                               42880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            325913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          498782
<SALES>                                               265046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      266462
<CGS>                                                  74759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          74759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      164257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        27446
<INCOME-TAX>                                            4100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    23346
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           23346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .005
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-20-00015-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DIANNA BERNSEN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

On January 13, 2020, relator Dianna Bernsen filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

and an emergency motion for stay in the above cause. Through her petition for writ of

mandamus, relator argues that the trial court erred in issuing various verbal and written 

orders compelling discovery on December 2, 2019, December 3, 2019, and December 5, 

 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in 

any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do 

so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

2019. By emergency motion, relator seeks to stay the underlying proceedings, including 

a show cause hearing set for January 13, 2019, regarding, inter alia, relator’s failure to 

comply with the foregoing discovery orders. 

“[M]andamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one.” In re 

Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief 

by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear 

abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. 

Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. 

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 

S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when 

a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding 

legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide, 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor 

Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an 

appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. 

In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met her burden to obtain 

relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion 

for stay. 

JAIME TIJERINA,

Justice

Delivered and filed the 

14th day of January, 2020.
# Official Journal C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.011.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 11A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 January 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.011.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 11A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 January 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France (Temporary Agent — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2014/C 011A/01

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France (Temporary Agent — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

Corrigenda

| 15.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 11/1

---

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France

(Temporary Agent — grade AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 6 A of 10 January 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

On page 4, under ‘Application Procedure’, the link in the third paragraph should read as follows:

‘https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/’.

---
#### Dennis HOPKINS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17470.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 27, 1963.

Decided March 14, 1963.

*187Mr. William J. Garber, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. J. Norman Stone, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, submitted on the brief, for appellant. Mr. William Bachrach, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. William C. Weitzel, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, submitted on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before Fahy, Danaher and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty to a violation of the Federal Narcotic Laws, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a), and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three to ten years. In receiving the plea the District Court, Judge McGarraghy sitting, was careful to inquire of defendant, who was present in open court with counsel, as to the defendant’s comprehension of the nature and consequences of the plea. This occurred June 25, 1962. On September 25, 1962, other counsel filed in the District Court a motion to set aside the plea and to order appellant committed to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital or other mental hospital to determine whether he “is of unsound mind or is mentally incompetent so as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense.” The support for the motion was an affidavit of the wife of the appellant. The motion was denied; and this appeal from the denial order followed.

The motion and affidavit are insufficient to have required the court under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), or otherwise, to take the action sought by the motion.

The sentence of the appellant was made with a recommendation by the court that he be committed to an institution in which he would receive treatment for narcotics addiction, and the provisions of 24 D.C.Code § 302 are available for transfer of the appellant from jail to a mental institution if appropriate.

Affirmed.