alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3636 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3636

**Commission Decision of 14/02/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3636 - PETRONAS / SASOL / UHAMBO JV) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 14.02.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/200647

to the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M. 3636 – Petronas/Sasol/Uhambo/JV Notification of 14/01/2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 20 of 25.01.2005

1. On 14 January 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertakings Petroliam Nasional Berhad (“Petronas”, Malaysia) and Sasol Limited (“Sasol”, South Africa) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Uhambo Oil Limited (“Uhambo”, South Africa) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for Petronas : oil, natural gas and petrochemicals,

- for Sasol : oil, natural gas and petrochemicals,

- for Uhambo : refining and distribution of liquid fuels.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph a of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

(signed) Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] Available on DG COMP website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
#### KOBRIN BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., Appellant, v. Bradley B. BARNES et al., Appellees.

No. 70-521.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 24, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of IA Global, Inc. (the
"company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan
Margerison, Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
Chief Executive Officer of the company (or equivalent) with the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used by any person
or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.


                                       /s/ Alan Margerison
                                       -------------------
                                       Alan Margerison
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       May 17, 2004
#### Daniel MELNICK et al., Appellants, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Reynolds Aluminum Supply Co., Appellee.

No. 2440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1970.

*491Howard M. Antevil, of Jackson & Jackson, Palm Beach, for appellants.

Louis Ossinsky, Jr., of Ossinsky & Krol, Daytona Beach, and Plisco & Zalla, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Judge.

This was a mechanic's lien foreclosure under Chapter 84, F.S.1963, F.S.A., brought by a materialman not in privity with the owners. From a judgment favorable to the lienor, the owners appeal.

Appellants’ first point is that the claim of lien was invalid because the lien- or’s notice to owners was served more than 45 days after commencing the furnishing of materials. This point must be decided adversely to appellants’ position upon the authority of Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla.1969, 221 So.2d 145.

The second point raised by appellants is that they should have been allowed to assert as an offset the damages which they sustained by reason of an alleged breach of contract on the part of the subcontractor to whom plaintiff had furnished the materials. The owners, acting as their own general contractor, had entered into a subcontract with Ark Ornamental Aluminum Company, Inc., for the furnishing and installation of certain metal railings on the balconies and walkways of two apartment projects. It was pursuant to this subcontract that plaintiff had furnished materials to Ark Ornamental Aluminum Company, Inc. When the owners became dissatisfied with the manner in which Ark Ornamental was performing the subcontract, the owners terminated the subcontract and had the work completed by another subcontractor at a greater cost per lineal foot than that which was provided in the original subcontract.

Where a contractor abandons an improvement before completion, the owner’s reasonable cost of completing the contract would be an item of damages which the owner could recover through the means of diminishing the contract price by the amount of such costs. Bryan v. Owsley Lumber Co., Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 246. But as against a lienor other than the contractor, an owner who fails to file a notice of abandonment under Section 84.071(4), F.S.1963, F.S.A., is not entitled to reduce the contract price by the cost of the completion of construction. John T. Wood Homes, Inc. v. Air Control Products, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 709. Without deciding the question of whether the Ark Ornamental contract was abandoned or was even within the rationale of the Bryan case, supra, the record discloses that the appellants neither pleaded nor proved compliance with Section 84.071(4), F.S.1963, F.S.A. Consequently, the court did not *492err in ruling that plaintiff’s lien was not subject to be offset by any damages which the owners might have sustained by virtue of the subcontractor’s alleged breach of contract.

The judgment is affirmed.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
**.Ma.rt.i,n.,MJch~eJ** 

### (,()ST) From: Sent: To: Sub jed:
To whom it may concern: Loren Jackson sr. <jloren83@yahoo.com> Friday, July 06, 2012 4:51 AM EAS (OST) Comment on EAS Service at Kake, Alaska DOT-OST-2008-0217

I am writing this letter of support for Wings ofAlaska'sreturning service between Kake & Juneau. Kake needs a much betterrate in these hard economy times. Air Excursions is way overpriced! Sincerely, LorenJackson Sr.**~;** .......
#### PEACOCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, New Amsterdam Casualty Company and Camay Realty, Inc., Appellants, v. SUPERIOR ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. et al., Appellees.

No. 70-872.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1971.

Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Joseph F. Jennings, Miami, for appellants.

Neblett, Sauer & Chappell, Key West, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A final judgment was rendered, after a non-jury trial, on the respective cross-claims of Hendrick Electric Company and Peacock Construction Company. Peacock and others have appealed and Hendrick and others have cross-assigned error in the final judgment.

Peacock says error was committed in the final judgment in granting recovery to Hendrick of $114,502.85 [less $59,840.60 as a set-off], which Hendrick claimed to be due it for certain “extras” it had performed and supplied.

The evidence on this point was conflicting and voluminous but was sufficient to sustain the award to Hendrick. See Tassinari v. Chaney, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 376; and 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts §§ 123 and 170.

Both parties concede that an error was made in computing the amounts due to make up the award of $114,502.85. They conceded at oral argument, that the amount of the award was incorrect in the sum of $3,193.00 and that the award to Hendrick should be reduced by this amount. We, therefore, reduce the amount of the award to Hendrick for claimed extras from $114,-502.85 to $111,309.85 and affirm the final judgment for Hendricks in that amount [less the set-off].

Peacock points to error in the final judgment by the finding that their claim against Hendrick and others, for breach of contract “was not proved” and was disallowed.

This point was an issue in dispute between the parties below. The trier of facts resolved the issue against Peacock. No error has been clearly demonstrated in this finding.

We have examined the points raised and argued under the three cross-assignments of error filed by Hendrick and find them to be insufficient for reversal.

The final judgment, as modified herein, is

Affirmed.
#### Donald H. ROSS et al., Appellants, v. C. T. McCRIMMON et al., Appellees.

No. 69-706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 31, 1970.

*412Leonard R. Mellon and Milledge & Horn, Miami, for appellants.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, Stanley D. Kupiszewski, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants ultimately sought an alternative writ of mandamus in the trial court to require the appellees to issue to them continuing contracts as instructional employees of a junior college. The trial judge summarily denied them relief, and we affirm.

The contracts submitted were prepared by the Commissioner of Education, pursuant to the provisions of § 231.36(3) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. They were submitted by the appellees [trustees] in accordance with § 231.36(3) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The contracts were unacceptable to the appellants, they contending that certain of the provisions were illegal and void, and they returned same without signatures. Upon notification of discharge, appellants sought to require the appellees to issue to them not the contracts as tendered, prepared under the direction of the Commissioner of Education, but contracts as amended in accordance with a memorandum they had submitted setting forth certain alleged illegal provisions of the tendered contracts.

No error has been made to appear. First, the trustees were not empowered to give what the alternative writ sought. State ex rel. Burr v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, 82 Fla. 255, 89 So. 641; Dance v. City of Dania, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 697; 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 11. Secondly, the appellants have failed to demonstrate a clear legal duty on the appellees to issue to them the contracts they sought. State ex rel. McCoy v. Bell, Fla. 1956, 91 So.2d 193; Dance v. City of Dania, supra; Ferris v. Board of Public Instruction of Sumter County, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 389; 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 29.

Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 12.1


PDV America, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Year Ended December 31
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                1999           1998           1997           1996           1995
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     (Dollars in Thousands)
<S>                                            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Income before provision for income taxes       200,415        361,703        334,185        215,781        226,482
   Distributions in excess of equity in
    earnings of affiliates                      82,847         46,180         33,506              -              -
   Equity earnings (losses) in excess of
    distributions                                    -              -              -         (8,672)       (19,090)
   Interest                                    165,351        180,241        209,465        194,362        186,546
   Amortization of previously
    capitalized interest                         3,076          2,858          4,115          3,600          3,440
   Portion of rent representative of
    interest factor                             11,667         11,333         13,000         11,000         10,928
                                               -------        -------        -------        -------        -------
     Total earnings                            483,356        602,315        594,271        416,071        408,306
                                               =======        =======        =======        =======        =======
Fixed charges

   Interest expenses                           165,351        180,241        209,465        194,362        186,546
   Capitalized interest                          7,000          5,000          7,800         12,000          5,000
   Portion of rent representative of
    interest factor                             11,667         11,333         13,000         11,000         10,928
                                               -------        -------        -------        -------        -------
     Total fixed charges                       184,018        196,574        230,265        217,362        202,474
                                               =======        =======        =======        =======        =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              2.52 x         3.06 x         2.58 x         1.91 x         2.02 x
</TABLE>
All images source: FHWA.

VOICES is a distributed simulation platform enabling users to test with others and seamlessly integrate 

connected surface transportation systems in realtime, all from the convenience of their research facility.

Connected. Cooperative. Cost-effective.

 Securely connect with other researchers and developers to efficiently test physical and 

simulated components (e.g., simulated vehicles with a physical traffic controller).

 Enhance system safety and interoperability earlier in the research and development stages.

 Leverage existing models for basic cosimulation with different simulation toolchains.

 Reduce costs through early issue resolution and strategic research partnerships.
Source: FHWA.

For more information, contact: VOICES@dot.gov 

Watch FHWA’s videos and learn how distributed, 

collaborative testing can benefit your team:

Concept 

Overview:

Systems Integration Test

(Summer 2022):

Pilot Test 1

(Spring 2023):

https://tinyurl.com/voices

-animated-overview

https://tinyurl.com/

voices -sit1

https://tinyurl.com/dotdistributed-test-pilot1

Source: FHWA.

FHWA-HRT-24-066 • HRSO-50/1-24(200)E

https://doi.org/10.21949/1521736
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. John ANDERSON et al., Appellee.

No. 77-762.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 11, 1978.

*474Spencer & Taylor and W. Thomas Spencer, Miami, for appellant.

Phyllis 0. Douglas, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

HUBBART, Judge.

By this appeal we are asked to review the propriety of an order granting a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action filed in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. We affirm the order appealed from with two modifications: (1) the dismissal herein, to the extent that it was made with prejudice, is stricken; and (2) the order declaring the rights of the parties is stricken. In our view, the complaint as presently framed fails to establish a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for a declaration of the rights of the parties under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1977), as interpreted in *May*v. *Holley,*59 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952).

The plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company filed this declaratory decree action seeking a declaration of rights as to (1) its duty to defend a certain tort action involving an automobile accident, and (2) the coverage of its insurance policy as to the accident which was the subject of such tort action. The complaint alleges that such tort action is presently pending in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and has been so pending for at least one year. The complaint fails to allege, however the present status of that action. There is no allegation as to whether Allstate has refused to defend such action or has denied coverage in such action. In the absence of such allegations, the complaint fails to show that there is a bona fide, actual, present, practical need for a declaration of the rights of the parties. Accordingly, the trial court was eminently correct in dismissing this complaint but should have done so without prejudice to the plaintiff to properly amend his complaint for declaratory relief.

It is axiomatic that the trial court should not have declared the rights of the parties in its order of dismissal because the complaint failed to state a proper cause of action for any declaratory relief under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1977). As the complaint was subject to dismissal without prejudice, it was improper to fashion a declaratory decree herein. *Cowne v. Weber,*257 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

Affirmed as modified.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27096]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


United States Properties, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

October 7, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
United States Properties, Inc. (``USPI''). Questions have been raised 
regarding the accuracy of assertions by USPI, and by others, in 
documents sent to and statements made to market-makers of the stock of 
USPI, other broker-dealers, and to investors concerning, among other 
things: (1) the identity of the persons in control of the operations 
and management of the company; (2) the purported members of USPI's 
advisory board; and (3) the trading and true value of the common stock 
of USPI.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, October 8, 1997 
through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 21, 1997.

    By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27096 Filed 10-8-97; 11:30 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                              ANNUAL CERTIFICATIONS
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of PDV America, Inc. (the "registrant"), does hereby
certify, to each officer's knowledge, that:

         The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the
registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the registrant.

<TABLE>
<S>                                           <C>
Dated: March 28, 2003                          /s/       Carlos Jorda
       --------------                         ----------------------------------
                                              Name: Carlos Jorda
                                              Title:   Chief Executive Officer



Dated: March 28, 2003                          /s/     Luis Davila
       --------------                         ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Luis Davila
                                              Title:    Chief Financial Officer
</TABLE>
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2000 - Present

Incapacitating A

Incapacitating: any non-fatal injury which prevents the person from walking, driving, or 

normally continuing the activities he/she was capable of performing prior to the collision and 

does require medical attention. Include severe lacerations, broken limbs, skull fracture, 

internal injuries, unconsciousness when leaving the scene, or inability to leave scene without 

assistance.

(17) Injury Severity

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2010 - Present

KY Uniform Code Sheet 2012,

KY Uniform Police Traffic Collision Report 

2010,

KY eCrash User Manual 2010

Pedestrian 16 No definition found. B. Unit Type Code code found on Code Sheet pg1

Pedestrian 3 No definition found. 14. Person Type code found on Code Sheet pg2

Pedalcyclist 2010 - Present

Bicycle 1 No definition found. B. Unit Type Code code found on Code Sheet pg1

Bicyclist 5 No definition found. 14. Person Type code found on Code Sheet pg2

Kentucky