alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022102EN.01000801.xml

| 2.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10506 - PARKER / MEGGITT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 102/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Parker-Hannifin Corporation (‘Parker’, United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

Parker-Hannifin Corporation (‘Parker’, United States),

| — | Meggitt PLC (‘Meggitt’, United Kingdom). |
| --- | --- |

—

Meggitt PLC (‘Meggitt’, United Kingdom).

Parker will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Meggitt.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Parker designs, manufactures and supplies motion and control technologies and systems, and provides precision engineered solutions for a variety of mobile, industrial and aerospace markets at global level, |
| --- | --- |

—

Parker designs, manufactures and supplies motion and control technologies and systems, and provides precision engineered solutions for a variety of mobile, industrial and aerospace markets at global level,

| — | Meggitt designs, manufactures and supplies components and sub-systems for aerospace and defence markets, and selected energy applications, at global level. |
| --- | --- |

—

Meggitt designs, manufactures and supplies components and sub-systems for aerospace and defence markets, and selected energy applications, at global level.

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.

4.

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

M.10506 – PARKER / MEGGITT

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

---
**EXHIBIT 21**

**P&F INDUSTRIES,INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

**Countrywide Hardware, Inc., a DelawareCorporation**

| d/b/a  |  Nationwide Industries, Inc., a Florida  Corporation |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Woodmark International L.P., a Delaware Limited  Partnership   |
|   | Stair House                                                    |
|   | Pacific Stair Products, Inc., a Delaware  Corporation     |
|   | WILP Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation               |

 

**Embassy Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation**

| d/b/a |  Embassy  Industries, Inc. |
|-------|--------------------------------------|

 

**Florida Pneumatic Manufacturing Corporation, a FloridaCorporation**

| d/b/a  | Florida Pneumatic Manufacturing Corporation |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Universal Tool                              |
|   | Pipemaster                                  |
|   | Berkley Tool                                |
|   | Franklin Manufacturing                      |

 

**Green Manufacturing, Inc. a Delaware Corporation**

| d/b/a |  Green Manufacturing, Inc. |
|-------|--------------------------------------|

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2679 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2679

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide access to and manage the distribution of excess or surplus 
              property to veteran-owned small businesses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Small Business Enhancement 
Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES.

    Section 32 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657b) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Access to Surplus Property for Veteran-owned Small 
Businesses.--
            ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
                    ``(A) the term `foreign excess property' has the 
                meaning given the term in section 102 of title 40, 
                United States Code; and
                    ``(B) the term `state agency' has the meaning given 
                the term, including the roles and responsibilities 
                assigned, in section 549 of title 40, United States 
                Code.
            ``(2) Requirement.--The Administrator, in coordination with 
        the Administrator of General Services, shall provide access to 
        and manage the distribution of surplus property, and foreign 
        excess property returned to a State for handling as surplus 
        property, owned by the United States under chapter 7 of title 
        40, United States Code, to small business concerns owned and 
        controlled by veterans (as verified by the Secretary of 
        Veterans Affairs under section 8127 of title 38, United States 
        Code) pursuant to a memorandum of agreement between the 
        Administrator, the Administrator of General Services, and the 
        head of the applicable state agency for surplus properties and 
        in accordance with section 549 of title 40, United States 
        Code.''.

            Passed the Senate December 6, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2679

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide access to and manage the distribution of excess or surplus 
              property to veteran-owned small businesses.
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1130 

TP 13-00697 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF KHALAIRE ALLAH, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H.

Dadd, A.J.], entered April 16, 2013) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated an inmate rule. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously

dismissed without costs as moot (see Matter of Free v Coombe, 234 AD2d

996). 

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2022298EN.01005701.xml

| 5.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/57

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10748 – MACQUARIE / BCI / NATIONAL GRID / NATIONAL GRID GAS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 298/03)

On 30 June 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 32022M10748. 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 32022M10748. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### MUTUAL PROTECTIVE ASS’N OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. T. B. TAYLOR, Appellee.

No. 11253.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Sept. 30, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1933.

<3. R. Lipscomb, of Et. Worth, for appellant.

Bishop & Holland, of Athens, for appellee.

JONES,' Chief Justice.

This case has taken the same course in this court in the matter of a failure to file the record within the 60-day period, in appel-lees’ filing a motion to affirm on certificate, in this court permitting the record to be tar•dily filed and in overruling the motion to affirm, as the case of Mutual Protective Association of Texas v. J. R. Dickerson et ux., 64 S.W.(2d) 407, this day decided by this court. It is not deemed necessary to recite the facts of this case, other than to refer to the Dickerson Case. Eor the reason stated in the Dickerson Case, the motion to strike out the transcript of the record is sustained and the ■appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             399
<SECURITIES>                                     7,850
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,147
<PP&E>                                           8,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              107
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,024
<SALES>                                          6,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,423
<CGS>                                              169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (385)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,890)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
#### ANDERSON v. STATE.

No. 21005.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 1, 1940.

*810Russell & Edwards and Vernis Fulmer, ail of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed George Pleasant by shooting him with a pistol.

It was the theory of the state, given support in the evidence, that appellant sought deceased and killed him without provocation. Appellant testified deceased had alienated his wife’s affections. It was his version that on the occasion of the homicide deceased and Sid Chapman attacked him; that believing that his life was in danger, he killed deceased.

It is seen from the foregoing brief statement of the evidence that a sharp issue was presented as to who began the difficulty. In his motion for new trial, appellant alleged newly discovered evidence, and attached the affidavit of a witness who would have testified, if he had been present at the trial, that deceased stated to him, in effect, that he had gotten into some trouble about a woman out at Center Point and that it “looked like he would have to kill a negro preacher to keep her.” Further, the witness stated in his affidavit that he would testify that deceased stated to him at the time that he had “done gone too far now to back up, because this negro is done expecting me to do something to him * * It does not appear that the failure of appellant to discover the testimony prior to his trial is due to any lack of diligence on the part of himself or his attorney. We think the motion for new trial should have been granted. We quote from Branch’s Ann.Texas P.C. Section 2092, as follows: “Where it was a vital question as to who began the difficulty or who was most likely the aggressor, a new trial should be granted for newly discovered evidence of uncommunicated threats.” In support of the text several authorities are cited, among them being Pate v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 462, 113 S.W. 759.

Appellant brings forward two bills of exception in which he complains of the action of the trial court in permitting the state to introduce in evidence the hats of the deceased and Sid Chapman. These hats had bullet holes in them. It is certified in the bills of exception that the introduction of such hats tended to solve no issue in the case. Without predicating a reversal upon these bills of exception, it is suggested that upon another trial the hats should not be received in evidence unless they tend to solve some issue in the case.

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.
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNos. 333-116206, 333-90952 and 333-11145 on Form S-3 and 333-25261,333-73041, 333-73075 on Form S-8 of our report datedFebruary 18, 2005 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 143, *Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations*, and SFAS No. 149, *Amendmentof Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 133 on Derivative Instruments and HedgingActivities*) relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Otter Tail Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting (which includes an explanatory paragraph that an acquisitioncompleted in August 2004 was excluded from the assessment of internalcontrol over financial reporting) appearing in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of Otter TailCorporation and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Otter TailCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
#### DOUPE v. STATE.

No. 17114.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1934.

Geo. S. Berry, Tom B. Perkins, and W. D. Benson, Jr., all of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

There has been filed with the clerk of this court a proper affidavit certifying that pending appeal this appellant escaped from the custody of the sheriff on June 24, 1934, and has not been recaptured, or returned to custody. Under the terms of our statute this court is without jurisdiction to further consider said appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Brennan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                 |  |                                                
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|November 7, 2007 |  | /s/ John J. Brennan                            
|                 |  | John J. Brennan                                
|                 |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022068EN.01000101.xml

| 9.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10576 – BAIN CAPITAL / HELLMAN & FRIEDMAN / ATHENAHEALTH GROUP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 68/01)

On 1 February 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 32022M10576. 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 32022M10576. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,867,294
<SECURITIES>                                 5,979,659
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,937,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                   350,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,998,731
<PP&E>                                       5,766,441
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,709,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,831,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,111,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        88,215
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,762,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,831,706
<SALES>                                      5,753,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,753,000
<CGS>                                        1,746,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,594,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (587,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (154,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (433,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (280,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>