alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 244/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.244.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 244 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5624 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.244.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 244

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5624 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 244/01 | Commission Opinion of 23 August 2013 on two draft Regulations of the European Central Bank in the field of monetary and financial statistics | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

2013/C 244/01

Commission Opinion of 23 August 2013 on two draft Regulations of the European Central Bank in the field of monetary and financial statistics

1

---

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 244/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6973 — Axa PE/Fosun/Club Méditerranée) (1) | 3 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 244/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6973 — Axa PE/Fosun/Club Méditerranée) (1)

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 244/03 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 244/03

Euro exchange rates

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 244/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6960 — SNCF/COMSA-EMTE/CRT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 5 |
| 2013/C 244/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6957 — IF P&C/Topdanmark) (1) | 7 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 244/06 | Complaint CHAP(2013) 1334 — Acknowledgement of receipt and information | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 244/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6960 — SNCF/COMSA-EMTE/CRT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

5

2013/C 244/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6957 — IF P&C/Topdanmark) (1)

7

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2013/C 244/06

Complaint CHAP(2013) 1334 — Acknowledgement of receipt and information

8

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Exhibit 99



Supplemental Segment Information

|(In thousands)                     | Quarter endedOctober 31, | Six Months endedOctober 31,
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------------
|                                   | 2006                     | 2005                       
|Orders Received:                   |                          |                            
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $ 74,659                 | $ 72,039                   
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 48,297                   | 42,917                     
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 19,593                   | 16,267                     
|                                   | $142,549                 | $131,223                   







|(In thousands)                     | October 31,2006 | April 30,2006
|---------------------------------- | --------------- | -------------
|Backlog:                           |                 |              
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $ 2,485         | $  2,699     
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 41,022          | 40,514       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 116             | 357          
|                                   | $43,623         | $43,570
263 La. 251

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward GANCH and Beverly Ann Rando.

No. 52543.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1972.

*215William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Cheney C. Joseph, Jr., Baton Rouge, Sp. Counsel for State, for plaintiff-appellant.

Fred A. Blanche, III, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

A Bill of Information was filed charging the defendants with disturbing the peace in that they “committed an act in such a manner as would foreseeably disturb and alarm the public.” La.R.S. 14:103(A)(7). The information was quashed on motion of the defendants on the grounds that the statute under which they were charged is unconstitutional on its face. The State appeals.

Although the statute punishes conduct we take notice of the fact that conduct is often a means of expression. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965). Since the statute is susceptible of application to expression it can withstand constitutional attack only if, as authoritatively construed by our court, it cannot be applied to expression which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed. 2d 408 (1972). “In other words, the statute must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression.” Gooding v. Wilson *(supra).*This is deemed necessary because persons whose expression is constitutionally protected may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions provided by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression. *Gooding, (supra).*

The statute on its face is susceptible of application to expression protected by the Louisiana Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 3) and the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Since we have not heretofore limited the statute in application to expression *216which is not constitutionally protected, it must fall as being overly broad and in contravention of the Louisiana and United States Constitutions.

The State argues that the case of State v. Sanford, 203 La. 961, 14 So.2d 778 (1943) has sufficiently limited the application of the statute to the area of unprotected expression.

In the Sanford case we merely held that the acts of the defendant there were not of such a nature as would tend to cause a breach of the peace. In no way does this limit the application of the statute so as to comply with the constitutional mandate of the *Gooding*case, (supra).

Since the statute is unconstitutional, the Bill of Information cannot stand. The judgment of the trial judge is affirmed.

SUMMERS, J., dissents.
#### Safari Whirlpool, Inc., Respondent, v Continental Industrial Center, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[655 NYS2d 418]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant Continental Industrial Center appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated January 29, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion to preclude it, upon the trial of the action, from presenting any testimony concerning the allegations contained in the third, fourth, and seventh affirmative defenses asserted in its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the defendant Continental Industrial Center failed to comply with the court’s conditional order of preclusion requiring it to provide a bill of particulars relating to certain of its affirmative defenses, the Supreme Court did not improvidently grant a final order precluding the defendant from offering evidence in support of those defenses *(see,*CPLR 3042 [cj; L 1962, ch 308; *Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist. v Costello,*100 AD2d 505). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### Francis H. HILLIARD v. Elden Ray SHUFF.

No. 53924.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: The widow and heirs of Francis H. Hilliard, deceased applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 280 So.2d 845.

Writ denied. Relator complains of interlocutory ruling denying his motion to dismiss an appeal. There is no final judgment and no showing warranting the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Noelie M. HOTARD v. Richard R. HOTARD.

No. 8830.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 12, 1977.

Don Almerico, Norco, for plaintiff-appellant.

*997Victor E. Bradley, Jr., Norco, for defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and STOULIG, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

We deny our motion to dismiss for want of “jurisdiction” (C.C.P. 2088; *Guilliot v. City of Kenner,*La.1976, 326 So.2d 359) this appeal from a January 18, 1977 separation judgment not perfected by filing bond until March 11.

The 30 days C.C.P. 3942 allows for appeal runs from the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial, C.C.P. 2087(1), since none was applied for. The seven-day delay for applying for new trial would have commenced, C.C.P. 1974, the day after mailing or service of notice, required by C.C.P. 1913 because the case was taken under advisement.

No notice was mailed or served. If we deem appellant’s February 7 motion for appeal an equivalent or a waiver of C.C.P. 1974’s notice, we would still have to allow the seven days of C.C.P. 1974 and then the 30 days of C.C.P. 3942; *In re Salmon,*La. App. 2 Cir. 1975, 318 So.2d 897. Accordingly the bond filed on March 11, 32 days after the February 7 motion for appeal, would have timely perfected the appeal.

Motion denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11200

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN PAUL LUNA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-255-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John Paul Luna has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Luna

has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11200 Document: 00513307897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 14-11200

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-11200 Document: 00513307897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
257 La. 854

#### Edward CASTON v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 51006.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: Edward Caston applying for certiorari, or writ to review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 244 So.2d 320.

Writ refused. The judgment of the court of appeal is correct.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# ACTION:

                        Request for public comment on                         *Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic;*                         Corrected.                    

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of July 5, 2018, concerning request for public comment on the                         *Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic.*                         The notice was published without a link to the document under review.                              ( print page 32156)    

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         published July 5, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-14388 (Filed 7-3-18), on page 31424, fourth column, Summary Section, first paragraph, please add the following web link after the text “Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic”:                         *https://www.iarpccollaborations.org/​principles.html.*

                        For Further information, please contact Renee Crain                         *rcrain@nsf.gov*                         or 703-292-4482.                    

Dated: July 6, 2018.

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2018-14802 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14646]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects 
Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special 
Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 
or (510) 907-5274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects 
Committee will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern 
Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew 
O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 
1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay 
Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include various IRS issues.
    The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with 
IRS processes.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Terrie English,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2018-14646 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAIME MACIAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50369

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00756-JFW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Macias appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 180-month

sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v.

FILED

SEP 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50369

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Macias’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         418,863
<SECURITIES>                                   992,945
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,517,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                   228,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,034,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,050,262
<PP&E>                                         523,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                 852,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,573,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,947,420
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,373
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,418,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,573,368
<SALES>                                      9,199,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,199,135
<CGS>                                        4,447,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,447,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,550,014
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,569
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (878,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (878,675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (878,675)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
Document

Exhibit 4.1






January 18, 2021






Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549


RE:  Carnival Corporation, Commission File No. 001-9610, and 
        Carnival plc, Commission File No. 001-15136


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Pursuant to Item 601(b) (4) (iii) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (the “Companies”) hereby agree to furnish copies of certain long-term debt instruments to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon the request of the Commission and, in accordance with such regulation, such instruments are not being filed as part of the joint Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Companies for their year ended November 30, 2020. 


Very truly yours,


CARNIVAL CORPORATION AND CARNIVAL PLC






/s/ Arnaldo Perez    
General Counsel and Secretary
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF ACT NETWORKS, INC.


ACT Networks (BNS), Inc., a Delaware corporation
ACT Networks, Inc. - Wireless Networks Systems, a Delaware corporation
ACT Networks (Canada), Inc., a Canadian corporation
ACT Networks do Brasil, LTD, a Brazil limited company
ACT Networks (Asia) LTD, a limited company incorporated in China
ACT Networks (1997), FSC, a foreign sales corporation incorporated in Barbados
ACT Networks (Europe) LTD, a limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom
ACT Networks PTY LTD, an Australian limited company
3174697 Canada Inc., a Canadian corporation
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

DECEMBER 15, 2014

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

and

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
#### In re Marsha L. SHIRLEY v. Jimmy S. SHIRLEY. Ex parte Jimmy S. SHIRLEY.

SC 2620.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 4, 1977.

TORBERT, Chief Justice.

WRIT QUASHED, Ala.Civ.App., 350 So.2d 1041, AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### Morton Samuel LIVENSTON, Appellant, v. Berneice Russell LIVENSTON, Appellee.

No. 70-12.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1970.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant.

Harvey Richman, Miami Beach, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, *JJ.*

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal the former husband of the appellee brings for review a post-judgment order of the trial judge increasing appellee’s alimony from $500 per month to $600 per month for a limited time in order to cover unanticipated educational expenses. The appellant urges that because the appellee testified there was no substantial change in her ordinary expenses, the increase should have been denied. Appellant argues that even though appellee’s income has increased the court may not increase the alimony because the appellant had testified during the original proceeding that he could, if ordered by the court, pay an amount greater than the $500 allowed in the final decree. He relies upon Graves *842v. Graves, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 451, and Gillotte v. Gillotte, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 657, as support for his argument. The cited cases do not support the proposition advanced In each case the court held an increase in alimony improper where the amount was originally set in a property settlement and the benefits of the property settlement agreement had been accepted by the wife.

 This case is governed by the principle set forth in Henderson v. Henderson, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 699, where the court stated;

> “It was argued that the financial awards should have been larger because ‘defendant’s business in becoming healthier and healthier each year * * When this change is manifest or when there have been other substantial changes in the husband’s ability to pay or in the wife’s needs, then she, of course, may reapply and obtain a new adjudication in the light of these changes, at least with reference to support and alimony.”

Affirmed.