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

<ARTICLE>          5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                      13,388
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               88,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,087)
<INVENTORY>                                 22,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           131,899
<PP&E>                                     287,039
<DEPRECIATION>                            (107,703)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             356,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       77,059
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 253,379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               356,164
<SALES>                                    152,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           152,745
<CGS>                                      101,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               329
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,525
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,525
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .78







</TABLE>
The Establishment of the National Environmental 

Supercomputing Facility in Bay City, Michigan

EPA Office of Inspector General

The Establishment of the National 

Environmental Supercomputing Facility in 

Bay City, Michigan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• CHAPTER 1

o INTRODUCTION

o PURPOSE

o BACKGROUND

o SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

o SCOPE IMPAIRMENTS

o AGENCY COMMENTS ON SCOPE IMPAIRMENTS

o OIG EVALUATION

o AUDIT COVERAGE

• CHAPTER 2

o EPA CIRCUMVENTED GSA TO ACQUIRE THE BUILDING

 EPA Circumvented GSA to Establish a Facility for Agency Use 

 Rationale For Circumventing GSA 

 Lease Versus Purchase 

 Internal Controls 

o CONCLUSION

o RECOMMENDATIONS

o AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

• CHAPTER 3

o EPA PRE-SELECTED THE SUPERCOMPUTER SITE

o BACKGROUND

o LEASE CHRONOLOGY

 Bay City Vicinity Site Options 

 Rationale For Site Selection 

 Exclusion of Competition 

 Inappropriate Contacts 

 "Comparable" Rates 

 Building Space Exceeded Requirements

o CONCLUSION

o RECOMMENDATIONS

o AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

• CHAPTER 4

o EPA EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY

 Antideficiency Act 
 Competition in Contracting Act 

 "Giveaway" of Government Property 

 Grand Opening Ceremony 

 Unauthorized Work 

o RECOMMENDATIONS

o AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

• CHAPTER 5

o EPA'S SUBCONTRACT ADMINISTRATION VIOLATED LAW

 Subcontract Type 

 Subcontract Competition 

 Truth in Negotiations 

 Determination of Responsibility 

 Administration of Government Property 

o RECOMMENDATIONS

o AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

• CHAPTER 6

o EPA FAILED TO MAINTAIN DOCUMENTATION

o CONCLUSION

o RECOMMENDATIONS

o AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

• APPENDIX I

o RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

• APPENDIX II 

o ACRONYMS 

• APPENDIX III 

o AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT 

• APPENDIX IV 

o DISTRIBUTION
No. 62526.

#### Henry Pollak, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 176990-K, etc. (New York).

*427Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of straw hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Pollak Industrial Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 251, C. D. 1991), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1577 

To amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the judicial review 

of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2017 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. LEE, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. SASSE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. 

LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the 

judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and 

regulatory provisions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Separation of Powers 

5 Restoration Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGU7 LATORY INTERPRETATIONS. 

8 Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘all 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1577 IS

1 relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and stat2 utory provisions’’ and inserting ‘‘de novo all relevant ques3 tions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional 

4 and statutory provisions and rules’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
No. P68/290.

protests 65/4610 and 65/4611 (Philadelphia).

#### John. A. Steer Co. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of coordinato-graphs or parts, dedicated for use therewith, in chief value of metal, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *John A. Steer Company*v. *United States*(53 CCPA 67, C.A.D. 879), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61336.

protests 160232-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Person & Weidhorn *v.*United States,

*489Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of four-color prints similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 60598, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# i ENT0 ^EdPll/t^g ^

^ORTATI O I Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n^ ^ dI f t L l OPERAT i i i Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio nf^Any ^ ^*V* ' 

## ^e4f?/A, G DOCKE T B \ ' M 2i. l 

### P 1 - 3 b I nth e matte r

o f M&RHELICOPTE R Docke t No . CPlOSOOOl l FAA Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 Chie f Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r

COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS ET O M & RHELICOPTERS ' MOTIO NFO R SPECIA LRELIE FAN D SANCTION S AGAINS T COMPLAINANTS ' -

PROSECUTORIA LINDISCRETIO N I n amotio nreplet e withinaccuracie s an dfals e statements , Responden t ask s th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e t o orde r sanction s whic har e neithe r provide dfo r

unde r th e Procedura l Rule s no r

warranted . Ther e i s n o basi s fo r thi s motion . WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motionfor Special Relie f

an dSanctio nAgains t Complainaiit' s - Prosecutoria l Indiscretion . Respectfiill y submitted ,

\^yC ^ Pete r J . L j Assistan t Chie f Counse l for Enforcemen t

AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-313 7 Facsimile : (202)267-516 0 Dated : Marc h10,201 1Certificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e place di nth e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretimi-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respondent' s Motio nfo r Special Relie f an dSanctio nAgains t

Complainant s - Prosecutoria l Indiscretio nI nth e Matte r of M & R Helicopters , Docke t

No . CPlOSOOOl 10 , FA A Cas e no . 2009SO950434 , addresse dto : Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suite 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o nthi s dat e I hav e sent

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronnie A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o nthi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receipt , th e origina l an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0

Dated : Marc h10,201 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
---------------------

Contact:          Frank D. DeBartola
                  Vice President - Strategic Business Development
                  404-264-2600
Website:          http://www.HMPvascular.com


            HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. ("HMP") ANNOUNCES MOVE TO
                 THE AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE UNDER SYMBOL "HMP"

Atlanta, Georgia - November 8, 1999 - Horizon Medical Products, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HMPS) today announced that its common stock has been accepted for
listing on the American Stock Exchange (the "AMEX") under the symbol "HMP," and
will commence trading on the AMEX at the opening of business on November 9,
1999. In conjunction with its move to the AMEX, its stock will discontinue
trading on the Nasdaq National Market System as of the close of business on
November 8, 1999, where it is currently traded under the symbol "HMPS."

Marshall B. Hunt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of HMP, said, "We are
transitioning our stock listing to the American Stock Exchange. We look forward
to trading on the AMEX and providing continued liquidity for our shareholders.
Trading in HMP's common stock will not be interrupted by this change, as the
transition should be seamless for our shareholders."

Certain statements and information included herein may constitute
"forward-looking statements" which are made pursuant to the safe harbor
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The
forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and may be
significantly impacted by certain risks and uncertainties described herein and
in various documents filed by HMP with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, including but not limited to HMP's Prospectus on Form S-1 and HMP's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998. There can be no
assurance that statements made in this press release relating to future events
will be achieved. HMP undertakes no obligation to update or revise
forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of
unanticipated events or changes to future operating results over time.

HMP, headquartered in Manchester, Georgia, is a specialty medical device company
focused on manufacturing and marketing vascular access products. HMP's oncology
product lines include implantable ports, tunneled central venous catheters and
stem-cell transplant catheters used primarily in cancer treatment protocols. HMP
has a complete line of acute and chronic dialysis catheters and immediate access
hemodialysis grafts used for kidney failure patients and a specialty line of
embolectomy balloon catheters, carotid balloon shunts, and occlusion balloon
products used to maintain the vascular system.


                                    * * * * *
FORT DODGE REGIONAL AIRPORT

1639 Nelson Avenue, Suite 2 • Fort Dodge, IA 50501 

515.573.3881 - Ext. 3 • fdairport@fortdodgeiowa.org

May 8, 2014

Sent Electronically via E-Mail

US Department of Transportation EAS@dot.gov

Office of the Secretary

Washington DC

RE: Order: 2014-4-26

Order Regarding Termination of EAS Eligibility

Fort Dodge, IA 

Docket DOT-OST2001-10682

While not disputing the enplanements documented in the order, I do feel the mileage of 156 miles 

listed in Appendix A is not reflective of the most used route from Fort Dodge, IA to Omaha, NE. 

While I understand the DOT uses the “shortest” distance from the center of the city to the airport 

entrance in calculating mileage, it can be stated that the more traveled route is right at 175 miles. I 

would also like to add that the driving distance is traveling on a two way 55mph highway which 

takes you through many small towns along the route. Driving on a four lane interstate from Fort 

Dodge to Omaha has a distance of 232 miles.

Given our past enplanement history and unique circumstances, we look forward to receiving the 

order addressing the process for filing a waiver.

Respectfully,

Rhonda M. Chambers

Director of Aviation
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOE NER SESYAN, AKA Ovsep Ne rse sy a n, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10511

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00108-GEB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Garland E. B urre ll, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 14, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, ** Distric t Judge . De fe nda

nt Joe Ne rse s y an ple a de d guilty to unla wfully posse ssing a m a c hine gun a nd wa s se nte nc e d to 51 m onths in prison. On a p pe a l, he c onte sts the distric t c ourt’ s a p plic at i on of a

highe r ba se offe nse le ve l unde r U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B ) 

# FIL ED JUN 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.for be ing a “ prohibite d pe rson” in posse ssion of a fire arm . Se e Unite d State s v . Purdy , 264 F.3d 809, 813 (9th C ir. 2001) (e xp la ining tha t a n unla wful drug use r is a pe rson who “took drugs with re gula rity , ove r an e xte nde d pe riod of tim e , a nd c onte m p orane ously

with his . . . posse ssion of a fire arm ” ). He c onte nds tha t the re c o rd doe s not e sta

blish tha t he wa s using drugs a

t the tim e of the we a

pon posse s sion. W e a ffirm . The re c ord supports the

distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Ne rse sy an wa s both a

n unla wful drug use r and a

drug a ddic t whe n he wa s c ha rge d with posse ssing a m a c hine gun. This re nde rs him a “ prohibite d

pe rson” within the

m e a n ing of the se nte nc ing guide line s. Polic e offic e rs found Ne rse sy an’ s unla wful m a c hine gun on Oc tobe r 26, 2015, inside

a c ar he ha d be e n borrowing for m ore tha n two m o nths. In tha t c a r, the offic e rs a lso found m e tha m phe tam ine and re c e ntly

use d drug pa ra phe rna lia tha t ha d be e n within Ne rse sy an’ s re a c h. About six m onths la t e r, in M ay 2016, Ne rse sy an a dm itte d to proba tion tha t he ha d a history of a ddic tion tha

t le d him to a re la pse e arlie r in 2015, a

nd tha t he wa s c urre ntly taking unpre sc ribe d opia te s da ily . Tha

t sa m e m onth, he te ste d

positivefor using m e tha done . A fe w we e ks a fte r that, he sta

te d in a c a ll from ja il tha t he “ ne e ds m e th,” “ ha s a

proble m ,” and ha s “ be e n using he roin.”

2Give n the e v ide n c e of ongoing drug use from 2015 through June

2016, a s we ll a s Ne rse sy an’ s re c urre nt issue s with drug a ddic tion, the re wa s m ore tha n a pre p onde ranc e of e vide nc e supporting the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t Ne rse s y a n wa s both a

n unla wful drug use r and a

drug a d dic t whe n he posse sse d the m a c hine gun. Evide nc e tha t he wa s using drugs a

t the e xa c t m om e nt he wa s found with thegun wa s not re quire d. AFFIRM E D.

3
(Reap. Dec. 10038)

#### D. E. Sanford and Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 15268, etc.

(Decided June 28, 1961)

*Lawrence £ Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A hereto annexed and made a part hereof, are limited to the items marked “A” and initialed ABJ (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner A. B. Johnson (Examiner’s Name) and are abandoned in all other respects.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as so limited the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *Indussa Corp.*v. *United States,*C.A.D. 736 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade were the appraised unit values less 40% plus 10% sales tax plus packing as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals may be submitted upon this stipulation.

*406On the agreed facts and following the cited authority on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory foreign value, and that such value therefor is the appraised unit values, less 40 per centum, plus 10 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Order entered March 26, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00074
- CR RAYFORD HIGH, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. F12
- 57938
- Y



### O RDER Appellant’s March 23, 2015 motion for extension of time and motion to compel the filing of the reporter’s record is GRANTED to the extent we ORDER court reporter Catherine
V ecchio to file, within THIRTY days of the date of this order, a supplemental reporter’s record of the October 23, 2014 hearing on appellant’s amended motion to reconsider the motion to suppress. In the event no notes are available regarding the requested supplemental reporter’s record, Catherine V ecchio i s ORDERED to file a letter stating that the requested supplemental reporter’s record cannot be filed.
We EXTEND the time to file appellant’s amended brief until SIXTY days from the date
of this order. We EXTEND the time to file the State’s brief until N INETY days from the date
of this order.WE DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to court reporter

Catherine V ecchio ; The Honorable Elizabeth Frizzell, presiding judge , Criminal District Court No. 7; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ LA NA MYERS JUSTICE
Street Address (888) 651-6851, (903) 723-0331 Mailing Address

1000 N. Church St. Fax: (888) 651-6851 P.O. Box 1157 Palestine, Texas 75801 Email: jeff@coelawfirm.com Palestine, Texas 75802-1157 January 26, 2015

Katrina McClenny Tyler Court of Appeals 1517 West Front Street, Suite 354 Tyler, Texas 75702

Re: In Re Innovation Resource Solution, LLC, Appeal No. 12-15-00015-CV

Dear Clerk:

Please be advised that although a final trial was scheduled in the trial court in the abovereferenced original proceeding, the trial court judge, the Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, stayed the case pending resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus pending before the Court of Appeals. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cordially,

/s/ Jeffrey L. Coe Jeffrey L. Coe Attorney at Law 

## JEFFREY L. COE

ATTORNEY AT LAW ACCEPTED
12-15-00015-CV
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS
1/26/2015 12:17:01 PM

CATHY LUSK
CLERK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JOHN GADDY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

M. TOWNSEND, Appeals Coordinator; et

al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 15786

D.C. No. 4:16

- cv

- 01319

- HSG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung

,

391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) . We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15786

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gaddy failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any

adverse action against him because of a grievance he filed to correct an erroneous

disciplinary record

, which was in fact corrected

. See Rhodes v. Robinson , 408 F.3d

559, 567

- 68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment

retaliation claim in the prison context).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Quarterly Report of Patients & Physicians, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and six-month periods ended June 30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Philip E. Barak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;





(1)  The
      Form
      10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
              August 14,
              2006/s/ Philip
              E.
              BarakPhilip
              E. Barak - Chief Financial Officer
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4363 — Yum/Pizza Hut)

(2006/C 248/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

----
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3865 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.