alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2005253EN.01002101.xml

| 29.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 253/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 253/21

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 June 2005

relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/A.39.116/B2 — Coca-Cola)

(notified under document number C(2005) 1829)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/670/EC)

(1)

This decision adopted pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) is addressed to the Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) and its three major bottlers, Bottling Holdings (Luxembourg) SARL, Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetränke AG and Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company SA (hereafter: the Parties). The subject matter of the procedure relates to the conduct of TCCC and its bottlers in the supply of carbonated soft drinks in both the distribution channel for consumption at home and the channel for consumption on premise in the EC Member States, Iceland and Norway. In a preliminary assessment, the Commission expressed concerns under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement in relation to practices consisting in exclusivity-related requirements, growth and target rebates and leveraging of market power between various product categories.

(2)

The Commission considers that the commitments offered following the preliminary assessment and the observations submitted by interested third parties are sufficient to address the identified competition concerns in channels, where the Parties reach defined market share thresholds. In particular, the Parties will refrain from concluding exclusivity agreements save in specific circumstances and from granting growth and target rebates. In the preliminary assessment these practices were considered to make it more difficult for third parties to compete on the merits. By providing that requirements concerning assortment and shelf-space must be defined separately for certain categories of brands, the commitments address the concern identified in the preliminary assessment that strong brands could be leveraged in favour of weaker brands. In regard to financing and technical equipment, the commitments reduce contract duration, give customers the option of repayment and termination without penalties and free up a certain share of cooler space, thus addressing the concerns that the pre-existing arrangements would unduly bind customers and lead to outlet exclusivity.

(3)

The decision finds that, in view of the commitments, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission. The decision shall be binding until 31 December 2010.

(4)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 20 May 2005.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

1

---
## RECEIVED February 17,2011 

## rEB 2 1 

## 2011 Office of Air Waste &**TOXiC~** Richard Albright, Director Office ofAir, Waste and Toxics United States Environmental Protection Agency

.. Region 10 1200 SixthAvenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 Dear Mr. Albright: I am inreceipt ofyour letter requesting government-to-government consultation with the Yakama Nation concerning pending EPA actions onRegional Haze State Implementation Plans. Visibility inthe Pacific Northwest is very important to the Yakama Nation, not only for the aesthetic appeal ofa beautiful landscape, butbecause ofthe harm that is caused by haze-causing pollutants to human health, natural resources and cultural resources. Throughout the past decade, the Yakama Nation has invested a great deal ofeffort to engage with agencies and stakeholders to help identifY and quantifY harmful pollution and sources in the Columbia Basin. Besides our work to develop ourreservation's FARR Program and monitoring, we have conducted four studies that have helped characterize airpollution in the Columbia Basin. Additionally, we have presented about the impact ofcoal-fired powerplants on our people and the natural resources in the region. The people ofthe 14 confederated Tribes and Bands ofthe YakamaNation have lived in the Pacific Northwest since time immemorial. Our reservation lands extend 1.4 million acres, but our ceded lands, where we have reserved rights, based onthe Treaty of 1855, for use--hunting, gathering, fishing, and grazing-extend to 11 million acres. Because ofthis ourpeople and the natural resources we depend on are impacted by haze-causing pollutants throughout the Northwest. Please contact Phil Rigdon, Deputy Director ofDept. ofNatural Resources, to set a time to begin the consultation. 509-865-5121, ext4655. Sincerely,

# 4~ Tribal Council Chairman

Post Office Box 151, Fort Road, Toppenish, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00675-CR

Angelina SARABIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR4398W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 1, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Angelina Sarabia, pled no contest to the charge of theft under $1,500.00, 

enhanced. Adjudication of guilt was deferred and appellant’s sentence was suspended and she 

was placed on community supervision for two years. Later, the State moved to revoke 

appellant’s community supervision. At a hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pled “true” 

to violating a condition of her community supervision. On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed 

appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and 

demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the 
04-12-00675-CR

- 2 -

appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). Appellant was informed of her right to review the record. Counsel provided appellant

with a copy of the brief and advised her of her right to file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed 

a brief. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 

v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).1

 

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Do not publish

 1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 

Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must 

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last 

timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary 

review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.
*The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited

under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1The Supreme Court, in Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997), holds that the

new provisions of 28 U.S.C., ch. 153, which includes the § 2253(c) certificate of appealability

(continued...)

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 30 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LEWIS LAVERN SETLIFF,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. MICHAEL CODY,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 97-6144

(D.C. No. 95-CV-962)

(Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Lewis Lavern Setliff seeks leave to appeal from the district

court’s decision adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and

dismissing Mr. Setliff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. We construe petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability as

one for a certificate of probable cause to appeal.1
1

(...continued)

requirement, added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), are

generally not applicable to cases filed before AEDPA’s effective date, April 24, 1996. See

United States v. Kunzman, No. 96-1310, 1997 WL 602507, at *1 n.2 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 1997) (en

banc). This circuit has therefore held that § 2254 petitioners who filed their petitions in district

court prior to the effective date of AEDPA, as in this case, do not need a certificate of

appealability. Id. Petitioner, however, is subject to § 2253's previous requirement that he obtain

a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994) (amended 1996).

- 2 -

In Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), the Supreme Court held that “a

certificate of probable cause requires petitioner to make a substantial showing of

the denial of a federal right.” 463 U.S. at 893 (citations omitted). This requires

that the petitioner demonstrate that the issues presented are debatable among

jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues differently or that the

questions deserve further proceedings. See id. at 893 n.4. After careful

examination of petitioner’s application, the district court’s order and the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we conclude that Mr. Setliff has

failed to make the required showing. Consequently, petitioner’s request for a

certificate of probable cause is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. The

mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

**FORM N-PX**

**ANNUAL REPORT OF PROXY VOTING RECORD OF**

**Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund**

Investment Company Act file number  811-5076

Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

John Millette

Secretary

One Beacon Street

Boston, MA  02108-3106

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  617-295-1000

Date of fiscal year end:  09/30

Date of reporting period:  7/1/07-6/30/08

Form N-PX is to be used by a registered management investment company, other than a small business investment company registered on Form N-5 (§§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter), to file reports with the Commission, not later than August 31 of each year, containing the registrant's proxy voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30, pursuant to section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and rule 30b1-4 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30b1-4). The Commission may use the information provided on Form N-PX in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles.

A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-PX, and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-PX unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 3507.

 
```

******************************* FORM N-Px REPORT *******************************

ICA File Number: 811-05076
Reporting Period: 07/01/2007 - 06/30/2008
Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund

================ A     TAX-EXEMPT CALIFORNIA MONEY MARKET FUND =================

NO PROXIES RECEIVED OR VOTED FOR THIS FUND

========== END NPX REPORT
```

 

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY, AUDITED BY KPMG, FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         114,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,275
<PP&E>                                       8,111,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,226,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          800,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,118
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,193,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,226,202
<SALES>                                         10,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,013,943
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,654,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             627,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                407,277
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,139,662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[104th Congress Public Law 60]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ60.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 635]]

Public Law 104-60
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
      To amend the commencement dates of certain temporary Federal 
            judgeships. <<NOTE: Nov. 28, 1995 -  [S. 1328]>> 

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

SECTION 1. COMMENCEMENT DATE OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.

    Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 
101-650; 104 Stat. 5101; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is amended by striking out 
the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``The first vacancy in 
the office of district judge in each of the judicial districts named in 
this subsection, except the western district of Michigan, occurring 5 
years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill a 
temporary judgeship created by this Act, shall not be filled. The first 
vacancy in the office of district judge in the western district of 
Michigan, occurring after December 1, 1995, shall not be filled.''.

    Approved November 28, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1328 (H.R. 2361):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-334 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Oct. 24, considered and passed Senate.
            Nov. 20, H.R. 2361 and S. 1328 considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 10.44


Exhibit 10.44



TERMINATION
AGREEMENT



Reference is made to (i) the
Installment Note executed as of the 20th day of July 1999 (the
“Installment Note”) by Ascent Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“AMI” or the “Borrower”) and wholly-owned subsidiary of Ascent
Assurance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ascent”, formerly known as
Westbridge Capital Corp.), and (ii) the Guaranty executed as of the 21st day of
July 1999 (as modified and supplemented and in effect on the date hereof, the
“Guaranty”) issued by Ascent Funding, Inc. in favor of the Bank. 



     	 	
          (1) Payment of Installment Note. The Bank hereby acknowledges receipt on
          January 31, 2003 of an amount equal to $1,624,406.96 representing the payment of
          prepayment in full of all outstanding amounts owed to AMI under and in
          connection with the Installment Note. As a result, the Installment Note and the
          Guaranty are hereby deemed to be terminated. 



          



	  	
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Termination and Release to be duly executed as
of the 31st day of January 2003. 








	 	LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
	 	By: /Bradley Kronland/
	 	Name: Bradley Kronland 
	 	Title: Assistant Vice President
#### Marjorie B. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. Isabella M. McNAMEE et vir, and Discount Auto Sales, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 29, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
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 ViaVid Broadcasting Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Brian
Kathler, Chief Financial 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, 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 results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Brian Kathler
-------------------




Brian Kathler
Chief Financial Officer
February 11, 2004


                                       28
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 StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Greg Ness, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 5, 2009



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    J. GREG NESS                  
|J. Greg Ness                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Golda S. DEEN, Petitioner, v. GATOR FREIGHTWAYS, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 44540.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 284 So.2d 246.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 12(2)
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, Chow Chun Man, Jimmy, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Enterprises, Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:(a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the




---



##### 



audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):(a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 29, 2009
 /s/ Chow Chun Man, JimmyCHOW CHUN MAN, JIMMYChief Financial Officer