alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022444EN.01000301.xml

| 23.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 444/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 444/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10925 – BNP PARIBAS / TERBERG BUSINESS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 444/03)

On 16 November 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10925. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10925. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Amendment to 2000 Director Option Plan



 Exhibit 4.6 
  

AMENDMENT 
 to the 

MICROTUNE, INC. 
 2000 DIRECTOR
OPTION PLAN 
  
 Pursuant to Section 11 of the Microtune, Inc.
2000 Director Option Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. The first paragraph of Section 3 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place: 
  
 “Stock Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 10 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be optioned
and sold under the Plan is 457,500 Shares. The Shares may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.” 
  
 2. This Amendment shall amend only those provisions of the Plan set forth herein, and those sections, paragraphs and sentences not expressly amended
hereby shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 3. This
Amendment shall be effective immediately upon its approval by the stockholders of the Company. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned had executed this Amendment as of February 27, 2004. 
  

			
	MICROTUNE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ James A. Fontaine
		
	Name:	 	James A. Fontaine
		
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer & President


  
 APPROVED BY THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF 
 THE COMPANY ON MAY 5, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21322]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 331 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-625, CP2024-634.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21322 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2022458EN.01000901.xml

| 1.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 458/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 458/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M. 10890 – MARCEGAGLIA STEEL / OLPUK / OSB / FSAB)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 458/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Marcegaglia Steel S.p.A (‘Marcegaglia Steel’, Italy), controlled by Marcegaglia Holding S.r.l (Italy), |
| --- | --- |

—

Marcegaglia Steel S.p.A (‘Marcegaglia Steel’, Italy), controlled by Marcegaglia Holding S.r.l (Italy),

| — | Outokumpu Long Products Limited (‘OLPUK’, UK), Outokumpu Stainless Bar LLC (‘OSB’, USA) and Fagersta Stainless AB (‘FSAB’, Sweden), controlled by Outokumpu Oyj (Finland). |
| --- | --- |

—

Outokumpu Long Products Limited (‘OLPUK’, UK), Outokumpu Stainless Bar LLC (‘OSB’, USA) and Fagersta Stainless AB (‘FSAB’, Sweden), controlled by Outokumpu Oyj (Finland).

Marcegaglia Steel will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of OLPUK, OSB and FSAB (the ‘Target’).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Marcegaglia Steel is an Italian industrial group in the steel processing sector, with a focus on trading and processing of steel. It mainly produces carbon steel products, but also, to a smaller extent, stainless steel flat and long products. |
| --- | --- |

—

Marcegaglia Steel is an Italian industrial group in the steel processing sector, with a focus on trading and processing of steel. It mainly produces carbon steel products, but also, to a smaller extent, stainless steel flat and long products.

| — | The Target is a producer of stainless steel long products and semi-finished products in the form of wire rods, ingots, billets, blooms and slabs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Target is a producer of stainless steel long products and semi-finished products in the form of wire rods, ingots, billets, blooms and slabs.

3.

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

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 5 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10890 – MARCEGAGLIA STEEL / OLPUK / OSB / FSAB

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 |

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’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2786 

To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

submit a report on cross-border rail security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2015 

Mr. VELA (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to submit a report on cross-border rail security, 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 ‘‘Cross-Border Rail Se5 curity Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CROSS-BORDER RAIL SECURITY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of 

9 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall submit 

10 to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2786 IH

1 Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security 

2 and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 

3 following: 

4 (1) The number of shipments entering the 

5 United States by rail annually that are determined 

6 to be high-risk by the Commissioner. 

7 (2) Specific details on the status of radiation 

8 detection units, by type, at each rail crossing on the 

9 northern and southern land borders as of such date 

10 of enactment. 

11 (3) An assessment of whether additional radi12 ation detection equipment is necessary to ensure 

13 that all such high-risk cross-border rail shipments 

14 are examined with appropriate equipment. 

15 (4) A plan for ensuring that all relevant CBP 

16 personnel receive adequate training and guidance on 

17 the proper use of CBP’s Automated Targeting Sys18 tem for such high-risk cross-border rail shipments, 

19 the use of appropriate radiation detection equipment 

20 for examination of such high-risk cross-border rail 

21 shipments, and requirements for recording examina22 tion results. 

23 (b) GAO AUDIT.—The Comptroller General of the 

24 United States shall periodically audit U.S. Customs and 

25 Border Protection operations at rail crossings on the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2786 IH

1 northern and southern international borders to ensure rail 

2 shipments are targeted, examined, and the results of such 

3 examinations properly documented. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2022464EN.01000201.xml

| 6.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 464/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 464/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10906 – INFRAVIA / LIBERTY GLOBAL / TELEFÓNICA / OPAL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 464/02)

On 14 November 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10906. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10906. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Cleco Corporation Exhibit 10(a)






EXHIBIT 10(a)

 

	
    CLECO CORPORATION
    

	
    
    2000 LONG-TERM
  INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 

 

	
    
     

	
    
    Amendment No. 2

	
    
    (Elimination of
  Grant to Eligible Directors)

 

    
     



	
    Whereas,
    Cleco
  Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
  of Louisiana (the "Company"), adopted the 2000 Long-Term Incentive
  Compensation Plan (the "LTIP"), which plan was approved by the shareholders
  of the Company on April 28, 2000; 

 

	
    
	
    Whereas,
  the Company now desires to amend the LTIP to eliminate the award of an
  immediately exercisable Nonqualifed Stock Option to nonemployee members of
  the Board of Directors of the Company upon election and, thereafter, upon
  reelection to the Board;

 

	
    
	
    Whereas,
    Section
  12.1 of the LTIP permits the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the
  LTIP, subject to any limitations imposed by applicable law; 

 

	
    
	
    Now,
  Therefore, effective as of July 23, 2004, Section 11.3 of the LTIP shall
  be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

	
    
	
    "11.3   
    Grant
  to Eligible Directors.  This section intentionally left blank."

 

	
    
	
    This
  Amendment No. 2 was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company on
  July 23, 2004, to be effective as of the dates set forth above.

    

 



	
    
                                            CLECO
  CORPORATION  

	
     

    
	
    
                                            By:     /s/
  Catherine C.
  Powell                           

    
	
     

    
	
    
                                            Its:     Sr.
  Vice President - Corporate Services
#### MURRAY v. MISSOURI, K. & T. R. CO.

No. 13042.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Port Worth.

Nov. 30, 1934.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1935.

Houston & Johnson, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Thompson & Barwise and P. B. Walker, all of Port Woi'th, for defendant in error.

BATTIMORB, Justice.

This is a railroad crossing collision case in which the jury returned a verdict of no negligence and no damages.

The appellant requested a special issue of negligence in lookout against defendant, which the court refused.' We are inclined to believe it should have been submitted. The evidence most favorable to the appellant is that his car was in plain view at all times ;■ that the engine struck the rear end of his automobile. The engineer said he first saw the car was going across the tracks when he was about 65 feet from the crossing; that he then and there applied the emergency brakes, etc. The train was moving at 25 to 30 miles per hour. Appellant says he started his ear from a standstill 30 feet from the track and was moving at 5 to 6 miles per hour. There is a great deal more of testimony which is conflicting and explanatory, but if the jury should reject it all except the above, then they could have found that the train was 150 feet from the crossing when appellant started across, and if the engineer had then applied his emergency .brakes the -engine would have missed striking the automobile.

The jury found no damages. The plaintiff testified he was rendered unconscious and in his work for the Magnolia Oil Company since then had been compelled to use a helper, which he had not needed before; that when he worked he suffered pains in his back and body; his stomach hurt. He had had three abdominal operations prior to the accident. Physicians’ testimony was directly conflicting as to whether any impairment of his health or bodily structure existed from the collision.

The jury ánswered issue No. 3 that he received injuries in the collision, and issue No. 16 that his compensation for his injuries was “none.” There is evidence in the record sufficient for the jury that plaintiff suffered no •money loss from his injuries. When we consider the other feature, that is, pain and suffering, these' are matters which must be left largely to a jury’s discretion. They see the witnesses and hear them on the stand. What seems large in black and white may dwindle to insignificance in the larger picture which the jury sees in the trial court. The symptoms are wholly subjective. The rule that guides us works both ways. We have often affirmed judgments that seemed to us large, and the same rules must apply when it comes to the other side of the same situation. There is no evidence in the record which suggests prejudice or jury misconduct. We are directed to the opinion that the jury believed appellant’s pain and suffering was not of 'such gravity as to be practically compensa-ble or that they believed it was caused by his other ailments.

The judgment of the trial court is. affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

As adopted pursuant to

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2009, (the Report), I, Victor
E. Caputo, Treasurer 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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Victor E. CaputoVictor E. CaputoTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2009
Exhibit 10.1

                     AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


          Amendment,  dated  as of July  31,  1999,  between  Homestead  Village
Incorporated,  a Maryland corporation ("Homestead"),  and David C. Dressler, Jr.
("Dressler").

         WHEREAS, Dressler executed a Secured Promissory Note, dated October 15,
1996 (the "Note")  under which  Dressler  borrowed  $250,000  from  Homestead to
purchase  25,000  shares of  Homestead  Common  Stock at $10.00  per share  (the
"Shares"), which Shares are pledged to Homestead as collateral for the Note; and

         WHEREAS, the principal and interest on the Note is $260,077.05 as of
July 8, 1999; and

         WHEREAS,  the fair  market  value of the  Shares  as of July 8, 1999 is
$2.1875 per Share, or a total of $54,687.50; and

         WHEREAS, Homestead and Dressler wish to adjust the Note:

         NOW THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the premises and mutual covenants
  set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

         1. The principal and interest on the Note as of July 8, 1999,  shall be
reduced to $54,687.50.  It is intended that this loan  adjustment  qualify under
Section 108(e)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code.

         2. Except as amended hereby,  the Secured  Promissory Note shall remain
in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of July
31, 1999.

                                             HOMESTEAD VILLAGE INCORPORATED



                                             By: /S/C. RONALD BLANKENSHIP
                                                 ________________________

                                             Title: Interim Chairman and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                 ________________________


                                              /S/ DAVID C. DRESSLER, JR.
                                                 ________________________

                                              David C. Dressler, Jr.
NO. 12-14-00237-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY, 

APPELLANT

V.

MILTON WYLIE,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT

UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

The Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant, and Milton Wylie, Appellee, have 

filed an agreed motion to dismiss this appeal. In their motion, the parties state that they have 

reached an agreement regarding the issues in the appeal. According to the motion, the parties 

have agreed that (1) Appellant will dismiss this appeal; (2) Appellee will withdraw his initial 

appeal of Appellant’s denial of his application for renewal of a concealed handgun license 

(CHL); (3) Appellee will not apply for a CHL until on or after December 8, 2015, provided that 

he meets the criteria at the time of his application, and (4) this court should render judgment 

effectuating the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

We grant the agreed motion to dismiss. We render judgment effectuating the parties’ 

settlement agreement, and dismiss the appeal. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, 

costs on appeal are taxed against the party incurring them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

Opinion delivered October 30, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2014

NO. 12-14-00237-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellant

V.

MILTON WYLIE,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court 

of Upshur County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14-CV-9287)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the joint 

motion of the parties to dismiss the appeal herein for the reason that they have reached an 

agreement to compromise and settle their differences, and for this Court to render judgment 

effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement. Having heard and considered said motion, this 

Court is of the opinion the same should be granted.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

judgment is hereby rendered effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement and that this appeal 

be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; all costs on appeal are taxed against the party incurring 

them; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle. J.