alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sl()-l()()4()7-()2 3 

## Shrevepor t Airpor t Authorit y

510 3 Hollywocx J Ave. , Suit e 30 0 • Shreveport , L A 7110 9 Phon o (318 ) 673-537 0 • Telefa x (318 ) 673-537 7 Shrevepor t Regiona l Airpor t • Shrevepor t Downtow n Municipa l Airpor t March 25,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E 1 : J Washington , D C 2059 0 ri ^ Docket DOT-OST-2010-«B » f ^ Dea r Mr . Secretary : Than k you fo r th e opportunit

y t o expres s th e Shrevepor t Airpor t Authority' s suppor

t fo r th e applicatio n fo

r antitrus t inmiunit y andpropose djoin t

busines s agreemen t

file dby America

n Airline s an

dJapa n Airlines . Th e propose dallianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vital fo r oneworl dt o compete effectivel y wit h th e Sta r an dSkyTea

malliance . Thi s increase dinterallianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f

th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y - first b y solidifyin g U.S.-Japan Open Skies , the n by servin g a s afoundatio n fo r furthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte r athoroug h review , th e Shrevepor t Airpor t Authorit y encourage s th e Department o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul denabl e thes e oneworl dallianc e aurline s to wor k closely together

t o delive r highl y competitiv e ai r

transportatio n services . America n Airline s provide s eigh t

dail y flights betwee n Shrevepor t an dDF W International Airport . Thus , th e propose dagreement

betwee n th e tw o airline s wil l benefi t traveler s i n th e three-state regio n serve db y Shrevepor

t Regional Airport . Approva l fo r AA/JAL allianc e wil l hav e apositiv e impac t o n ai r trave l b y offerin g customer s mor e service , schedulin g an dpricin g option s andwil l help t o ensure tha t customer s continu e t o benefi t fi"omhavin g thre e competitiv e ai r alliance s to choos e fi-om. I urg e you t o quickl y approv e thi s application . Sincerely , Director o f Airport s
# C_2021138EN.01000702.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 — VodafoneZiggo Group BV v European Commission

(Case C-689/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC - Consolidating the internal market for electronic communications - Article 7(3) and (7) - Draft measure made accessible by the national regulatory authority - Wholesale fixed access market in the Netherlands - Joint significant market power - Comments of the European Commission communicated to the national regulatory authority - Obligation for the national regulatory authority to take the utmost account of them - Scope - Article 263 TFEU - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Challengeable act - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2021/C 138/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VodafoneZiggo Group BV (represented by: W. Knibbeler, A. Pliego Selie and B.A. Verheijen, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders VodafoneZiggo Group BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders VodafoneZiggo Group BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.2 Addendum





ADDENDUM




This addendum modifies that Exchange Agreement dated the 31st day of March, 2015 by and among, RemSleep Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation, with offices located at 4920 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Los Altos, CA  94022 (“RemSleep Holdings”) and RemSleep, LLC, a California corporation, with offices located at 5872 Owens Ave. Suite 200. Carlsbad, CA, 92008, (“REMSLEEP, LLC” or “the Company”) on behalf of its shareholders




The Exchange Agreement provisions are modified as follows:




1) The effective date of the Agreement is 12:00am January 1, 2015.




2) Ken Stead shall fully indemnify, hold harmless and defend (collectively “indemnify” and “indemnification”) RemSleep, LLC and its managers, directors, officers, employees, agents, stockholders, members and Affiliates (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against all claims, demands, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, losses, settlements, judgments, costs and expenses (including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs), whether or not involving a third party claim, which arise out of or relate to (1) any breach of any representation or warranty of Company contained in this Agreement, (2) any breach or violation of any covenant or other obligation or duty of Company under this Agreement or under applicable law, (3) any liabilities, disclosed or undisclosed which are outstanding or incurred by RemSleep Holdings at the effective date of this Agreement, in each case whether or not the relevant Claim has merit.”







On behalf of the RemSleep Holdings, Inc.:







______________________________________________

Date: _____________________

By: Ken Stead




On behalf of the RemSleep, LLC:







______________________________________________

Date: _____________________

By: Manager




Ken Stead:







______________________________________________

Date: _____________________

Ken Stead
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 IN CELEBRATION OF FOR THE LOVE OF THE LAKE'S 200TH CONSECUTIVE SECOND 
                      SATURDAY SHORELINE SPRUCE UP

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PETE SESSIONS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate For the Love 
of the Lake, a community organization, on its 200th consecutive Second 
Saturday Shoreline Spruce Up that will be held at White Rock Lake on 
November 10, 2012.
   For the Love of the Lake is committed to the preservation of White 
Rock Lake Park and sponsors the Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up 
initiative along with many other noteworthy programs. Since April 1996, 
volunteers of the Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up have gathered on 
the second Saturday of each month to pick up trash and scattered debris 
around the shores of White Rock Lake. They also work closely with the 
City of Dallas' Parks and Recreation Department to protect the local 
wildlife. Over the years, this organization has devoted countless hours 
to this endeavor, ensuring that White Rock Lake is kept clean and 
beautiful for all to enjoy. I have had the privilege of laboring 
alongside these dedicated volunteers and know firsthand the hard work 
it takes to clean up the shoreline.
   For the Love of the Lake truly understands the importance of 
conservation, and continues to protect White Rock Lake Park so it may 
remain an urban oasis for the City of Dallas. I am thankful for these 
dedicated volunteers and For the Love of the Lake. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating For the Love of the 
Lake on its 200th consecutive Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up. This 
remarkable achievement speaks loudly to the organization's continued 
commitment to maintain the integrity of White Rock Lake Park.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF                      NAMES UNDER WHICH
      SUBSIDIARY                                INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION                  THE SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
      ----------                                ------------------------------                 ----------------------------
<S>                                             <C>                                         <C>
BOGEN CORPORATION                                       Delaware                            Bogen Corporation

  (a)  Bogen Communications, Inc. (1)                   Delaware                            Bogen Communications, Inc.

  (b)  New England Audio Resource Corp.(2)              Delaware                            New England Audio Resource Corp./NEAR

  (c)  Bogen Communications (Barbados), Ltd. (3)        Barbados                            Bogen Communications (Barbados), Ltd

  (d)  Apogee Sound International, LLC. (4)             Delaware                            Apogee Sound International, LLC.

SPEECH DESIGN GMBH                                      Gremering, Germany                  Speech Design GmbH

  (d)  Satelco AG (5)                                   Switzerland                         Satelco AG

  (e)  Speech Design (Israel) Ltd.(6)                   Israel                              Speech Design (Israel)

  (f)  Speech Design (UK) Ltd.(7)                       United Kingdom                      Speech Design (UK)

  (g)  Digitronic Computersystem GmbH (8)               Germany                             Digitronic Computersystem GmbH
</TABLE>




(1)  Bogen Communications, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Corporation

(2)  New England Audio Resource Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Communications, Inc. (merged into Bogen Communications Inc. on December 31,
     1999).

(3)  Bogen Communications (Barbados) Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Communications, Inc.

(4)  Apogee Sound International, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Communications, Inc.

(5)  Satelco AG is a 67% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH

(6)  Speech Design (Israel) Ltd. is a 100% owned subsidiary of Speech Design
     GmbH

(7)  Speech Design (UK) Ltd. is a 100% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH

(8)  Digitronic Computersystern GmbH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Speech
     Design GmbH
# C_2009102EN.01001801.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2009 — R v Commission

(Case T-156/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff case - Probationary officials - Probation report - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Time-limit for initiating proceedings - Lateness)

2009/C 102/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: R (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Minatchy, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07 R v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, requesting that that order be set aside.

R

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders R to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission in the context of the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders R to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission in the context of the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
#### Maude Meek, Plaintiff, *v.*Mamie Martin, Individually and as the Surviving Spouse of Frederick Martin, Deceased, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 9, 1959.

*Bivin <& Welch*for Herbert S. Goodman, as committee, defendant appearing specially.

*Alan W. Vollmer*for plaintiff.

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion by Herbert S. Goodman, as committee of the incompetent, to set aside service of summons and complaint on the ground that he was never served or given a court order permitting service of summons and complaint upon the incompetent, and that no court order for that purpose has been issued.

It appears that defendant Goodman was duly appointed a committee and that on or about the day of the appointment he was served in the action herein.

*650Sections 225 and 226 of the Civil Practice Act do not state that permission must be first obtained, but merely that service shall be made on both the incompetent and the committee. However, since the action was one against an adjudicated incompetent for whom a committee was appointed, the service of the summons on the incompetent and the committee without leave of the court was improper, and the service may be vacated. *(Grant*v. *Humbert,*114 App. Div. 462; *Smith*v. *Keteltas,*27 App. Div. 279.) But such leave may be granted by the court *nunc pro tunc.*(19 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, 718; *Dunham*v. *Fitch,*48 App. Div. 321.) Such leave should be granted in this case. *1*‘ The court, which by its committee takes possession of the property of the incompetent person, is clothed with full authority to pay all just claims against the incompetent to the extent of his estate, and to determine the validity of claims by reference, if the facts are disputed. This summary remedy is favored by the courts, and is adopted in all cases unless some special facts or circumstances exist which render it necessary or appropriate that the claimant should be permitted by the court to maintain an action for the purpose of having his claim or the extent thereof adjudged.” *(Grant*v. *Humbert, supra,*pp. 464-465.) The cause of action set forth in the complaint is based on negligence, and the validity and extent of such a claim should not be decided summarily upon a petition to the court praying for allowance of the claim; rather it should be determined in an action. Therefore, since ample notice and opportunity to defend and protect the incompetent was given, the court hereby grants, *nunc pro tunc,*leave to sue the incompetent and his committee.

Motion is denied and leave is granted as specified.

Submit order.
# C_2013156EN.01002902.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Commission

(Case T-414/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joanna Esposito, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), *876rendered October 3, 1988, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the evening of May 19, 1985, the defendant arrived át John F. Kennedy Airport on a flight from Jamaica. As the defendant approached the customs area, United States Customs Inspector Eileen Manna, a veteran inspector of seven years, noticed that the defendant was wearing very loose clothing, and was struck by the fact that she did .not have a tan, which was unusual for an individual returning from Jamaica. When the defendant approached the inspector’s station to be cleared through customs, the inspector proceeded to ask her a series of routine customs questions. In response to the inspector’s queries, the defendant indicated that she had traveled to Jamaica in order to deliver food to a friend of her mother’s, and that she subsequently decided to cut her trip short because her mother had suffered a fall. The defendant was traveling alone, and carried only one piece of luggage, which contained a minimal amount of clothing. In addition, she appeared "overly friendly” to the experienced customs inspector. Based on these factors, the inspector escorted the defendant to a private room, where she conducted a pat-down search, and discovered a bulge in the defendant’s crotch area. Upon request, the defendant lifted her skirt up, and turned over a package containing approximately five ounces of cocaine.

An airport is the functional equivalent of a border when it receives passengers from an international arrivals flight *(see, Almeida-Sanchez v United States,*413 US 266), and a customs official who performs a thorough pat-down search as part of her border-patrolling activities must have some suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion, which "need only be real and based upon legitimate factors” *(People v Luna,*73 NY2d 173, 179). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, when viewed cumulatively, her appearance, demeanor and responses to inquiries concerning the purpose of her trip, as well as her returning alone from a country "known to be a source of illegal drugs” *(People v Robinson,*163 AD2d 428, 429), furnished the customs inspector with "a bona fide, articulable suspicion” *(People v Robinson, supra,*at 429) to justify the minimally intrusive pat-down search *(see, People v Luna,*
      *877
      *supra; People v McKeown,*146 AD2d 716; *People v*Rivera, 143 AD2d 783; *People v Materon,*107 AD2d 408). Accordingly, the defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Eiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Aerovox Incorporated on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-35029, 33-35030, 33-35031, 33-
68940 and 33-86092, 333-03693 and 333-11615) of our reports dated February 23,
1999, except for certain information presented in Note 3 for which the date is
February 26, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
the financial statement schedule of Aerovox Incorporated as of January 2, 1999
and December 27, 1997, and for the years ended January 2, 1999, December 27,
1997 and December 28, 1996 which reports are included or incorporated by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                        BY /S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                        --------------------------------
                                        PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 1999
(August 27, 1991)

#### In the Matter of Ramona Bennett et al., Respondents, v John L. Phillips, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating John L. Phillips as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the nomination of that party as its candidate for the public office of Civil Court Judge in the Second Municipal District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 20,1991, which, after a hearing, granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Resolution of questions of credibility and the weight of evidence is primarily the province of the finder of fact, who has had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). We see no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Supreme Court. We add that the Supreme Court correctly drew an adverse inference from appellant’s failure to produce numerous subscribing witnesses *(see, Matter of Haskell v Gargiulo,*51 NY2d 747). Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# C_2012025EN.01004702.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Dittert

(Case T-51/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Priority points - Points not allocated due to a technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior - Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)

(2012/C 25/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F 109/06 Dittert v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, with a view to having that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Daniel Dittert’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Daniel Dittert’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

---