alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013183EN.01001301.xml

| 28.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6543 — Ahold/Flevo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 183/03

On 7 May 2012, 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:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6543. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6543. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION


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





I, Tad M. Ballantyne, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Mach One Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Mach One
Corporation.





Date:
      May 24, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Tad M. BallantyneTad
      M. Ballantyne , Chief Executive
Officer





I,
Patrick G. Sheridan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Mach One Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Mach One Corporation.





Date:
      May 24, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Patrick G. SheridanPatrick
      G. Sheridan, Chief Financial
Officer
### NUMBER 13

- 1 1

- 00 224

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ALEJANDRO LOPEZ AND LINDA LOPEZ, APPELLANTS,

v.

ALICE ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLEES.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 79th District Court

of Jim Wells County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant s

, Alejandro Lopez and Linda Lopez , appealed a judgment entered by

the 79 th District Court of Jim Wells County, Texas. On May 16, 2011 , the Clerk of this

Court notified appellant s , in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c),

that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175.00 filing fee was paid. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P

. 42.3(c)

. Appellant s ha ve not responded to the notice from the Clerk or p aid the2

$175.00 filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 5, 12.1(b). Appellee has filed a motion to

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure of appellants to comply with

requirement of rules.

The C ourt, having considered the documents on file and appellants ’ failure to pay

the filing fee , is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, appellee ’ s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for

want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

14th day of July , 20 1 1

.
Yigo

Yona

Dededo

Piti

Agat

Inarajan

Talofofo

Santa Rita

Asan Mangilao

Merizo

Umatac

Barrigada

Tamuning

Chalan Pago-Ordot

Sinajana

Hagåtña

Mongmong- Toto-Maite Agana Heights

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 for Guam and the 2010 Census for Guam

For more information visit www.census.gov.

10.0 to 16.8

0.0 to 9.9

-15.0 to -0.1

-25.5 to -15.1

Percent Change

Percent Change for Guam: 2.9%

Municipality/ Election District

(County Subdivision Equivalent)

Agat

GUAM - 2010 Census Results

Percent Change in Population by Municipality: 2000 to 2010

GUAM

GUAM State/ County Equivalent

±

0 3 mi
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        1,517,202
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    56,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,714,744
<PP&E>                                        1,767,557
<DEPRECIATION>                                  817,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,015,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         7,591,037
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         10,032
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,575,821)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,015,216
<SALES>                                         310,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                310,026
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4,489,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              8,150,916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,071,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (13,340,534)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (13,340,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                               (13,340,534)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.42)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4(c)

 

	

    	
Sydling Futures Management LLC
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
   New York, NY 10019
    


 

 

June 16, 2016

 

Rajeev Patel

Winton Capital Management Limited

 

Re:                            Cavendish Futures Fund LLC

Sydling WNT Master Fund LLC

 

Dear Mr. Patel:

 

The Trading Advisory Agreement (the “Agreement”) among the above named funds, Sydling Futures Management LLC and Winton Capital Management Limited expires June 30, 2016.  Please accept this letter as a renewal of the Agreement and all terms for an additional twelve months to expire on June 30, 2017.

 

Please acknowledge this renewal by signing below and returning to my attention at jennifer.magro@ubs.com.

 

Best regards,



Jennifer Magro

 

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

 

	
/s/ Rajeev Patel
    	
 
    
	
Signature
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Rajeev Patel
    	
 
    
	
Print Name
Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 a n d Congressiona l Revie w Requirement s Rulemakin g Documen t

Title : 

## RiN

= ^Coi

- A0'{ 0 Wit hrespec t t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E.0.12866 : Th e requirement s o f sectio n6(a)(3)(E ) o f

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee nme t i naccordanc e withth e followin g [initial appropriat e line] :

Th e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s no t reviewe db y th e Offic e o f Informatio nan d Regulator y Affair s (OIRA) . N o substantiv e change s wer e mad e t o th e document(s ) after i t wa s submitte dt o OIRA . Th e require dinformatio ni s attached . 2 . Congressiona l Review : Th e requirement s o f th e Smal l Busines s Regulator y Enforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t for th e submissio n o f

final rule s t o Congres s an dGA O ( § 801 ) hav e bee nme t inaccordanc e withth e followin g [initial appropriat e line] :

Thi s documen t

i s no t afinal rule . Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e unde r

( § 804) . y ^ Th e documen t

ha s bee n submitte dt o C-5 0 for transmissio nt o Congres s an dGAO .

Nam e Title/Offic e Dat e
<PAGE> 110

                                                            Exhibit 32


                            Certifications


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 of American General Finance, Inc. as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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, 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/  Frederick W. Geissinger
                                      Frederick W. Geissinger
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer


                                 /s/  Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                      Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                 Senior Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer


Date:  March 7, 2005
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2877

To require the Secretary of the Interior to determine the impact of leasing

Federal lands for coal mining, on the existing mining industry prior

to issuing Federal coal mining leases, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 5, 1993

Mr. BARLOW (for himself and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to determine the

impact of leasing Federal lands for coal mining, on the

existing mining industry prior to issuing Federal coal

mining leases, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Coal Equity

5 Act of 1993’’.
2

HR 2877 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL COAL LEASING CONSIDERATIONS.

2 Section 2(a)(3) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30

3 U.S.C. 201(a)(3)) is amended by adding the following new

4 subparagraph at the end thereof:

5 ‘‘(F)(i) Prior to the issuance of any coal lease under

6 this Act, the Secretary shall consider the economic impact

7 that mining under the proposed lease might have on com8 petition in the coal industry and whether there is sufficient

9 market demand for the additional coal to be mined under

10 such proposed lease. Included in this consideration shall

11 be a determination as to whether production of coal from

12 the proposed lease would lead to the displacement of coal

13 produced from existing mining operations that have rea14 sonably and economically served existing markets. In the

15 event the Secretary makes a determination that produc16 tion of coal would lead to such displacement, the Secretary

17 shall not issue the lease.’’

18 ‘‘(ii) This subparagraph shall not apply to the issu19 ance of a coal lease that would in the reasonably foresee20 able future, prevent the bypass of Federal coal deposits,

21 and that would provide for the expansion of existing min22 ing operations.’’.

Æ
No. 00-7180.

#### Moreland *v.*Barry et al.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Clare L. GLORIOT, Appellee.

No. 71-636.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2014032EN.01000102.xml

| 4.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7112 — Sigma Alimentos/Campofrio)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 32/02

On 29 January 2014, 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:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7112. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7112. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
#### Helen JANOWICZ, Petitioner, v. The HUMANE SOCIETY OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 71-442.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE EARNINGS STATEMENT AND THE BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                        90
<INVENTORY>                                        953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,399
<PP&E>                                           5,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,782
<BONDS>                                            384<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        280
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,320
<SALES>                                          1,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,612
<CGS>                                              485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   274<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    277
<INCOME-TAX>                                        88
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                189
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES COMPANY'S GUARANTEE OF ESOP DEBT OF 218.
<F2>ONLY INCLUDES R&D EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### David A. CHRISTIANSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Diane D. CHRISTIANSON, Appellee.

Nos. 72-801, 72-885.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1973.

Dick & Lowenthal, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Nie-moeller & Flynn, Edward C. Vining, Jr. and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appel-lee.

*563Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these appeals by the plaintiff below from a judgment of dissolution of marriage, the appellant challenges, as being excessive, the allowances for alimony and support of the wife and for child support (by appeal No. 72-801) and the amount allowed for the services of the wife’s attorneys (by appeal No. 72-885).

The determination of the amounts of such allowances it to be made by the trial court in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, in the circumstances of the case, upon consideration of the needs and the financial abilities of the parties. One who challenges such an award has the burden to show that it constitutes an abuse of discretion. We have considered the appellant’s contentions relating to the awards in this case, in the light of the record and briefs, and find no reversible error has been shown.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANIES 10-Q FOR THE
SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,283
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,558
<PP&E>                                          32,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,315
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,376
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,136)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,740)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,084)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,656)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 3.1(2)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 ABGENIX, INC.


         ABGENIX, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

         FIRST: The name of the corporation is ABGENIX, INC.

         SECOND: The corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the state of Delaware on
July 8, 1998.

         THIRD: The Board of Directors of the corporation, acting in accordance
with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware, adopted resolutions to amend the Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of the corporation by deleting the first paragraph of Article
IV and substituting therefor a new first paragraph of Article IV in the
following form:

             "This Corporation is authorized to issue two classes
         of stock to be designated, respectively, Common Stock and
         Preferred Stock. The total number of shares which the
         Corporation is authorized to issue is one hundred five
         million (105,000,000) shares. One hundred million
         (100,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, each having a
         par value of $0.0001. Five million (5,000,000) shares
         shall be Preferred Stock, each having a par value of
         $0.0001."

         FOURTH: Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors,
this Certificate of Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the
corporation for their approval and was duly adopted in accordance with the
provision of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Abgenix, Inc. has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President and Chief Executive Officer and attested
to by its Secretary this 6th day of June, 2000.


                                    ABGENIX, INC.


                                            /s/  R. Scott Greer
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    R. Scott Greer
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


    /s/ Kurt W. Leutzinger
-------------------------------
Kurt W. Leutzinger
Secretary