alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005230EN.01000501.xml

| 20.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3929 — Barclays Private Equity/Neumayer)

(2005/C 230/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 5 September 2005, 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:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Dixie Faye GRIFFITH v. MOVIE STAR OF COLLINS, INC., a Corp. et al.

No. 45738.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 6, 1970.

John K. Keyes, Collins, for appellant.

Alben N. Hopkins, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Jackson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Raymond Lee OWES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Leroy McMILLER, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. CONE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and Employers Service Corporation, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 36477.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 26, 1967.

C. R. McDonald, Jr., Fort Pierce, for petitioner, cross-respondent.

Gilman, Cooper & Eubanks, Winter Park, for respondents, cross-petitioners.

Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 19, 1967.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dis*68pensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied. The cross-petition is also denied.

The attorney for the petitioner Leroy McMiller is hereby awarded a fee in the amount of $250.00 for services in this Court.

It is so ordered.

O’CONNELL, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ-, concur.
261 La. 1062

#### Hazel D. PICKERING, Individually and as Guardian of her Minor Child, Mary Jane Robbins v. Izel WASHINGTON and the Louisiana State Department of Highways.

No. 52458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1972.

In re: Hazel D. Pickering, Individually, etc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension. 260 So.2d 340.

Writ denied. The judgment is correct.
#### Donald Lee HIERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 14, 1972.

John D. Buchanan, Jr., of Henderson, Richardson, Canada, Henry, Buchanan & Munroe, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court hereby appealed is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 172

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 24, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1159) to revise, clarify, and improve certain

marine safety laws of the United States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall

be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on

Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill. Each

section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of con-
2

HRES 172 EH

sideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Motion Granted; Appeal Reinstated and Dismissed and Memorandum 

Opinion filed March 28, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00159-CV

PAUL TRCKA, Appellant

V.

GULF STREAM CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-DCV-271523

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a December 1, 2022 final order dismissing the 

underlying case for want of prosecution. The notice of appeal was filed on March 

7, 2023. The trial court found that appellant received notice of the final order on 

December 9, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(c).

On February 26, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal

based on a settlement that makes this appeal moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal the want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
  /s/  Gerald D. KelferGerald D. KelferPresident and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10320 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REGINALD BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-56-4-R

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Reginald Bennett has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bennett has not responded to this motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of SeaMED
Corporation, 1997 SeaMED Corporation Employee Nonqualified Stock Option Plan,
1995 SeaMED Corporation Stock Option and Incentive Plan and SeaMED Corporation
1988 Stock Option Plan of our report dated August 11, 1997, with respect to the
financial statements and schedule of SeaMED Corporation included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 1997.


                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
September 30, 1997
#### Nehemiah HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-923.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 on Form 10-Q of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (the
“Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Gibson, Chief
Executive 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:
 
 (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/ John W.
Gibson
 John W.
Gibson
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 April 30,
2009
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to ONEOK Partners, L.P. and will be retained
by ONEOK Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
J uly 31, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 7

- 1 4 7 8 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 5

- 0 2 8 0 8

- C V

- T C B

- 1

C A R O L T

. M A C K E Y

, C A L V I N M A C K E Y

, P l a i n t i f f s

- C o u n t e r

D e f e n d a n t s

- A p p e l l a n t s ,

v e r s u s

F D I C

- R

,

D e f e n d a n t

- C o u n t e r

C l a i m a n t

- A p p e l l e e ,

J O E L A

. F R E E D M A N

, D O E S 3

- 1 0

,

D e f e n d a n t s

- A p p e l l e e s

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( J u l y 3 1

, 2 0 0 9 )B e f

o r e D U B I N A

, C h i e f J u d g e , T J O F L A T

, C i r c u i t J u d g e , a n d B O W E N

, D i s t r i c t *

J u d g e

.

P E R C U R I A M :

C a r o l a n d C a l v i n M a c k e y a p p e a l f r o m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t i n f

a v o r o f t h e d e f

e n d a n t

, F D I C

- R

, o n t h e i r c l a i m s s e e k i n g r e s c i s s i o n

u n d e r t h e T r u t h i n L e n d i n g A c t

, 1 5 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 3 5

, a s w e l l a s t h e c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l

o f t h e i r o t h e r f

e d e r a l a n d s t a t e l a w c l a i m s

.

W e r e v i e w d e n o v o a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, a p p l y i n g

t h e s a m e l e g a l s t a n d a r d u s e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. J o h n s o n v

. B d

. o

f R e g e n t s o f

U n i v

. O f G a

. , 2 6 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 4

, 1 2 4 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 1 )

.

A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d

, r e a d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s , a n d h a v i n g t h e b e n e f

i t

o f o r a l a r g u m e n t

, w e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t b a s e d

o n t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ’ s w e l l

- r e a s o n e d R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n f i l e d o n

A u g u s t 7

, 2 0 0 7

.

A F F I R M E D

.

Honora ble Dudley

H. B owen, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Southern District *

of Ge org ia, sitting by

desig nation.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000040656
<NAME>                        General Semiconductor. Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         4,708
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  61,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                   687
<INVENTORY>                                    43,383
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,164
<PP&E>                                         225,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 565,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          62,027
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       369
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   565,692
<SALES>                                        198,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               198,544
<CGS>                                          147,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  175,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,119
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,360
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,360
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.25



</TABLE>
#### JOHN P. WARRINGTON vs. JAMES TULL.

A summons dated on the 11th, to appear on the 16th instant, is not lawful.

The time must be computed so as to leave five full days.

Certiorari. Summons dated October 11, 1847, to appear October 16, 1847.

The exception was that the day of appearance was less than five days from the day of the date of the summons.

As to computation of time *Mr. Layton*cited 3 *U. S. Dig.*518; 8 *Cowen Rep.*260; 3 *Halst. Rep.*303; 1 *Pick. Rep.*485.

*108
      *Mr. Cullen*cited 2 *Harr. Rep,*461; 9 *Cranch. Rep.*105; 1 *ib.*498; 2 *Cowen Rep.*

*By the*Court:

The exception is fatal. The act says the “ day for the defendant’s appearance” shall not be less than five days after the “day of the date” of the summons. The summons is dated October 11th and the day of appearance, viz: the 16th, is less than five days from the 11th exclusive, as it must be counted in the terms of the act. Sec. 3 has already,been so construed. Service of a summons “ at least four days before the day of appearance” is under that section required to be four days, exclusive of the day of service, and of the day of appearance.

Judgment reversed.
<PAGE>
                                                        EXHIBIT 23

                      MVSI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants            [LOGO]


We have issued our reports dated November 22, 1996, accompanying the 
consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference or included in 
the Annual Report of MVSI, Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 
30, 1996. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports 
in the Registration Statements of MVSI, Inc., on Form S-3 (File No. 33-89194, 
effective October 11, 1996).


                                                 Grant Thornton LLP


Vienna, Virginia
December 30, 1996
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Jack Friedman, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive    Officer of Friedman Industries, Incorporated, a Texas    corporation, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Friedman Industries, Incorporated;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, result of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

          b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]

          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

          d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

          a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: February 13, 2004 /s/  JACK FRIEDMAN Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                           15,419
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    31,091
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,562
<INVENTORY>                      37,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 92,620
<PP&E>                          145,351
<DEPRECIATION>                  101,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  168,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            52,091
<BONDS>                          54,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                         800
<COMMON>                          2,187
<OTHER-SE>                       55,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    168,978
<SALES>                          74,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 96,550
<CGS>                            42,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    56,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 57,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               (2,811)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (20,419)
<INCOME-TAX>                        500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (20,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    (20,919)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (1.02)

        

</TABLE>
## Video URL

**Date:**

        This player is provided by Google/YouTube, which may set a persistent          cookie on your computer or device upon its use. Consult YouTube's privacy          policies for further information. Please see GAO's Privacy, Legal and Other Site Policies for          information about GAO's privacy policy.
255 La. 343

#### STATE of Louisiana v. John B. LAWSON.

No. 50399.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Rudolph F. Becker, Jr. Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of May, 1970, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through his attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
ACCEPTED03-14-00629-CV4776980THIRD COURT OF APPEALSAUSTIN, TEXAS4/6/2015 4:04:16 PMJEFFREY D. KYLECLERK