alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022448EN.01000101.xml

| 25.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.10615 – BOOKING HOLDINGS / ETRAVELI GROUP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 448/01)

On 16 November 2022, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.10615 – BOOKING HOLDINGS / ETRAVELI GROUP, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH MARTIN

,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 102 39

D.C. No . 2:14

- cr

- 00678

- DGC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 7, 2023 * *

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Joseph Martin (“Martin ” ) appeals the denial of his motion for relief

from judgment filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Martin cannot challenge the final o rder at issue under rules applicable to civil

proceedings. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unambiguously

provides : “T hese rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in

the United States district courts , except as stated in Rule 81. ” The judgment and

order from which Martin seeks relief were not entered in a civil case, but in a

criminal proceeding. Civil Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for the relief Martin

seeks.

AFFIRMED

.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STEVEN A. MCLEOD, DOC #924820, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3923

)

ASHLEY MOODY, as Attorney General )

for the State of Florida and ANDREW )

WARREN, State Attorney, 13th Judicial )

Circuit, )

)

Appellees. )

)

Opinion filed May 3, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Richard A. Nielsen, 

Judge.

Steven A. McLeod, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katie Salemi Ashby, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for

Appellee Ashley Moody, Attorney General.

No appearance for remaining Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

MORRIS, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022068EN.01000801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/8 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10582 - GAMALIFE / GOING CONCERN OF ZURICH INVESTMENTS LIFE)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 68/05)

1.

On 1 February 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022068EN.01000801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | GamaLife – Companhia de Seguros de Vida, S.A. (‘GamaLife’, Portugal), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | A business unit of Zurich Investments Life S.p.A. (the ‘Target’, Italy). |

Gamalife will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the Target.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Gamalife is a life insurance undertaking, primarily active in Portugal, wholly-owned by investment funds advised by Apax Partners LLP (‘AP’, UK). |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Target is a mainly closed portfolio of life insurance contracts, together with the relevant assets, operations, contracts, employees, rights, liabilities and obligations. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022068EN.01000801-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10582 - GAMALIFE / GOING CONCERN OF ZURICH INVESTMENTS LIFE

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022068EN.01000801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022068EN.01000801-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### BRAMBELL v. STATE.

No. 18461.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1936.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of four years.

Upon the written request of the appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                          57,471
<SECURITIES>                                     5,907
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,945
<PP&E>                                          22,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,944
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       144,754
<OTHER-SE>                                    (91,094)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,098
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,504
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (676)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,751)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.96)


</TABLE>
##### 



REMEDYTEMP, INC.
 SPECIAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 Prepared by:
 REISH & LUFTMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Tenth Floor
11755 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
(310) 478-5656




---



##### 



REMEDYTEMP, INC.
SPECIAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
    not
  Definitions
 Beneficiary
 Board
 Disability
 Plan
 Plan Committee
 Shares




---



##### 



Trust Agreement
 Trustee
 Contribution and Allocation
 Company Contribution and Allocation
 Credited Earnings
 Forfeitures
 Funding
  Vesting
 2




---



##### 



Distributions
 Planned Distribution
 Unplanned In-Service Distribution
 Amendment
 Benefits Not Funded
   3




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Designation of Beneficiary
    Benefits Not Assignable
 Benefit
 Headings
 4




---



##### 



Notices
 Gender Usage
 Expenses
 Claims Review Procedure
     No Other Agreements or Understandings
 5




---



##### 



Administration
 Plan Committee
       Delegation of Duties
 Indemnification of Committee
 6




---



##### 



Liability
  REMEDYTEMP, INC.By:
    /s/ Paul W. MikosPaul W. Mikos, President 7
exv10w17



 





EXHIBIT 10.17




FIRST AMENDMENT TO




COINSURANCE AGREEMENT




This First Amendment to the Coinsurance Agreement (“First Amendment”) effective
January 1, 2004, by and between EquiTrust Life Insurance Company (“Reinsurer”)
and American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company (“Company”) shall be
effective August 1, 2004.



WHEREAS, the Reinsurer and Company wish to amend the Coinsurance Agreement
entered into between the parties with an effective date of January 1, 2004 (the
“Coinsurance Agreement”).



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Coinsurance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




	 	1.	 	Schedule A entitled CONTRACTS AND RISK REINSURED shall be
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the First Amendment to
Schedule A, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
	 
	 	2.	 	In all other respects, the Coinsurance Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment effective
August 1, 2004.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	EQUITRUST
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY	 	AMERICAN EQUITY INVESTMENT
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	
-s- William J. Oddy



	 	By:
	 	-s- D.J. Noble



	Name: William J.
Oddy	 	Name: D.J. Noble
	Title: Chief Executive Officer	 	Title: Chief Executive
Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	 	
7/30/2004



	 	Date:
	 	7/30/04





















 







FIRST AMENDMENT TO




SCHEDULE A




CONTRACTS AND RISKS REINSURED




Company agrees to cede to the Reinsurer, and the Reinsurer agrees to accept
from the Company the Quota Share reinsurance participation for the risks as
scheduled below that are not currently reinsured under another agreement:




	 	 	Beginning January 1, 2004 through the end of business on July 31, 2004, the
Quota Share will equal 20%. Thereafter, the Quota Share, shall equal 0%
until such time as the parties agree to resume ceding/assuming new business
and amend this Schedule A accordingly.




Reinsured Contracts



	 	 	 	 	 
	BRAVO

	 	INDEX-12
	 	INDEX-28
	FPDA-1(3%)

	 	INDEX-13
	 	INDEX-29
	FPDA-3

	 	INDEX-15
	 	INDEX-30
	FPDA-4

	 	INDEX-16
	 	INDEX-5
	FPDA-6

	 	INDEX-17
	 	INDEX-6
	FPDA-7

	 	INDEX-18
	 	INDEX-8
	FPDA-8

	 	INDEX-19
	 	INDEXP-3
	I-2000

	 	INDEX-22
	 	SUPER-7
	I-2001

	 	INDEX-23
	 	SPDA-1
	I-2002

	 	INDEX-24
	 	SPDA-2
	INDEX

	 	INDEX-25
	 	SPDA-5
	INDEX-1

	 	INDEX-26	 	 
	INDEX-10

	 	INDEX-27	 	 







State variations of the listed products are included under this agreement



Effective date of this Schedule: Policies issued beginning January 1, 2004,
and ending on July 31, 2004.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
Article 9 financial data schedule is restated for 10% stock dividend declared
September 28, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      49,892,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          91,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            28,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                458,933,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    995,699,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                 13,162,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,618,681,000
<DEPOSITS>                               1,329,535,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                13,707,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         26,062,000
<LONG-TERM>                                 70,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,250,000
<COMMON>                                       220,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 169,907,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,618,681,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             44,637,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           12,790,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               961,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            58,388,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          24,239,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          26,997,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       31,391,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,800,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           1,926,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             24,138,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,901,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  13,901,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,419,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.29
<LOANS-NON>                                  6,859,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 3,352,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               425,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            15,404,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                5,877,000
<RECOVERIES>                                 1,835,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           13,162,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        13,162,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Ex parte TURMAN.

No. 18700.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1936.

Frank Ivey, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Dallas county remanding relator to custody after a hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding.

No statement of facts is brought forward. The record before us shows that relator is legally restrained by the sheriff of Dallas county.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeáls has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by-the court.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 18728.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1937.

R. Temple Dickson, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling whisky in a “dry area”; the punishment, a fine of $150.

The complaint and information are deemed sufficient.

The proof on the part of the State was to the effect that appellant sold one-half pint of whisky to R. I. Deckert. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied making the sale.

There is no evidence in the record in support of the averments in the complaint and information that a local option election had been held in Scurry county; that said election had resulted in the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor; and that the result had been duly declared and published by the commissioners’ court. Appellant’s contention that, in the absence of such proof, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction must be sustained. See Oscar Humphreys v. State (Tex.Com.App.) 99 S.W.(2d) 600, delivered December 9, 1936.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        This Amendment  to Employment Agreement ("Amendment") is  made as of the
13th  day of  April, 2000 by and  between  ICG  Communications, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Company") and William S. Beans, Jr. ("Employee").

                                 R E C I T A L S

        WHEREAS,  the Company and Employee  previously entered into that certain
Employment Agreement dated as of December 22, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement");

        WHEREAS, the  Company and Employee  desire to  amend and  modify certain
terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement;

        NOW THEREFORE,  in  consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein the parties agree as follows:

        1.  Compensation  and  Benefits.  Section  3.5  (1)  of  the  Employment
Agreement is hereby amended, to read as follows: "14,814 stock options under the
Company's  1998 Stock  Option Plan with an  exercise  price equal to the closing
stock price of the  Company's  common  stock on June 28,  1999  vesting in equal
increments over three (3) years."

        2.  Other Terms and Conditions.  All  other terms and  conditions of the
Employment  Agreement shall remain  in full force and effect, as if fully stated
herein.

        3.  Capitalized Terms. Capitalized and defined terms shall have the same
meaning as that  accorded them in the  Employment  Agreement, unless the context
requires otherwise.

        4.  Conflict.  If there are any conflicting  terms or conditions between
the terms and conditions  of this Amendment and the terms and  conditions of the
Employment Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.

        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  each of the parties  hereto has duly executed this
Amendment as of the date first written above.


ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC.                           Williams S. Beans, Jr.


 /s/  J. Shelby Bryan                              /s/ William S. Beans, Jr.
----------------------------                      ------------------------------
Name: J. Shelby Bryan
     -----------------------
Title: Chairman and CEO
      ----------------------
#### PARKS v. CULLUM.

No. 2916.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Dec. 7, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1934.

Goggans & Keith, J. L. Goggans, and Law-rehce F. Green, all of Dallas, for appellant.

G. L. Johnson and M. H. Baughn, both of Dallas, for appellee. '

WALTHALL, Justice.

L. H. Cullum, as the payee of a certain promissory note, brought this suit against Oscar L. Parks as the maker of the note.' The note is dated November 6, 1931, and is in the principal sum of $738.60, bearing interest and providing for the payment of attorney fees. The note is fully set out in the petition, and is made due and payable ninety days after date. Parks pleaded under oath a failure of consideration upon which the execution and delivery of the note was b.ased, that was, that he had given the note to Cul-lum in consideration of a promise made by Cullum’s agent to cancel, do away with, and waive a previous trustee’s foreclosure and sale of certain real property belonging to Parks, and to destroy the unrecorded trustee’s deed held by Cullum under such foreclosure and sale. Parks claimed that Cullum had failed to comply with said promise, but instead had asserted the validity of such foreclosure and sale, had recorded the trustee’s deed, and had demanded and received possession of the property covered by, such foreclosure sale. Cullum denied Parks’ contention, and set up facts to sustain his contention as to the consideration for the note, which we need not state, but altogether a different state of facts from what Parks contended. Cullum asserted a compliance on his part with the terms of his alleged agreement upon which the note in controversy w;as made and a failure on the part of Parks to perform his part.

Trial was before a jury. Evidence was heard. The court instructed verdict for Cul-lum, and, based upon the instructed verdict, judgment was entered, from which Parks prosecutes this appeal.

Opinion.

Appellee, Cullum, has filed no brief in this court. Appellant, Parks, in his brief, submits that the evidence upon a material issue in the ease, the separate, distinct, and different contentions of the two litigants as to the consideration for the making of the note, was such that the peremptory instruction to the jury was error.

The contentions of the appellee and the appellant as to the facts upon which the note in controversy was made are different, the one from the other. We need not state the evidence. Two witnesses on either side stated the facts as they understood and knew the facts to be; the facts stated by the witnesses on the opposing sides are different and on the material issue of the facts which go to the consideration for the making of the note in question.

In view of the evidence in the record, we have concluded that the issues as to the consideration for making the note in question should have been submitted to the jury, and that it was reversible error to instruct the jury on that issue.

For the reason stated, the case is reversed and remanded.