alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
701 A.2d 845

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Joseph A. LOPES, Respondent.

Misc. BV No. 56,

Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 22, 1997.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Consent to Suspension from the practice of law for a period of ninety (90) days filed by Joseph A. Lopes and with the recommendation of Bar Counsel, it is this 22nd day of October, 1997.

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that Joseph A. Lopes, be, and he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, said suspension to run ninety (90) days from the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to any reinstatement Respondent will file a verified statement required under Rule 16-713(a)(2) and have engaged a monitor suitable to Bar Counsel who will agree to monitor his practice for a period of two (2) years after his readmission and will file monthly status reports with Bar Counsel for the first year and quarterly reports thereafter; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Joseph A. Lopes from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-713, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
#### MOODY v. STATE.

No. 18927.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1937.

C. C. McKinney, of Cooper, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for driving an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; punishment, a fine of $50.

The record is here without statement of facts or bills of exceptions.

All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment will be affirmed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022208EN.01000801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/8 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10731 – APOLLO MANAGEMENT / PRIMAFRIO)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 208/07)

1.

On 13 May 2022 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022208EN.01000801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Apollo Infrastructure Opportunities Fund II, L.P. (‘Apollo’, USA), controlled by Apollo Management L.P. (USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Primafrío Corporación, S.A. (the ‘Target’, Spain), currently solely controlled by Krone-Mur Servifrío, S.L. (‘Krone-Mur’, Spain). |

Apollo and Krone-Mur will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Target.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Apollo is a group of investment managing funds that invest in companies in various businesses around the world, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | the Target is a Spanish-based logistics operator active in the provision of freight forwarding and contract logistics services mainly in Spain and Germany. |

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_2022208EN.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.10731 – APOLLO MANAGEMENT / PRIMAFRIO

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_2022208EN.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_2022208EN.01000801-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
S. 2692 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4558 Broadway 

in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Stanley Michels Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STANLEY MICHELS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Stanley Michels Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Stanley Michels Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### WINTERS v. STATE.

No. 21000.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1940.

Earl Shelton and Dempsey W. Nash, both of Austin, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of unlawfully causing and contributing to the delinquency of a female child; penalty assessed at confinement in the-county jail for ninety days.

The complaint and information are sufficient to- charge the offense. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.

On. Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant in his motion for rehearing has raised a question as to the sufficiency of the jury’s verdict which reads as follows :

> “We, the Jury, find the Defendant Coy Winters Guilty, Ninety days in jail (90).

> “Roy C. Fritts

> “Foreman of the Jury.”

In the case of Moneyhun v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 136 S.W.2d 219, the following verdict was held to be insufficient:

> “No. 10311. Guilty, 90 days in jail

> “Geo. T. Moore, Foreman.”

It is stated in this opinion, however, that if the intention of the jury can be arrived' at by- fair interpretation of the written findings and from such findings, then such interpretation thereof should be given. In the Moneyhun case the verdict did' not say, “We find” the defendant guilty. It only says, “Guilty”. It is there held that the court would have to supply too much to the verdict in determining that they meant to find him guilty.

*790In the case before us we think it is different. The jury stated that they, the jury, found the defendant guilty. As a part of this verdict it says, “90 days in jail”. It does not require any speculation to understand what the jury meant by this statement. The verdict is sufficiently intelligible to be definitely understood and will support the judgment of conviction.

It is further presented in the motion for rehearing that the complaint and information are fatally and fundamentally defective because no offense under Article 534 of the Penal Code, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 534, is alleged. The reason assigned is that the information and complaint fail to state that Coy Winters was a parent, guardian, person having custody of or person responsible for the child involved. We think the statute is sufficiently broad and does cover any person who contributes to the delinquency of the child described, whether the parent, guardian or a person responsible for the child or not. Anyone whose act and conduct is such as to “in any manner cause, encourage, act in conjunction with or contribute to delinquency” is included in the statute. Delinquency is defined in Article 534 of the Penal Code and, without doubt, includes the things charged in the information in this case.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
# C_2022203EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10710 – SELFINVEST / LLG / SELECTED CAR GROUP JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 203/01)

On 11 May 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 32022M10710. 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 32022M10710. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### NEWELL v. STATE.

No. 18742.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

Harold H. Young, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for establishment of a lottery under the name and description of an *255ace marble machine and the disposition of personal property by means of same; punishment, a fine of $1'00.

There are no bills of exceptions in th& record. We regard the facts as sufficient to show the guilt of the accused. We find accompanying the record a motion to dismiss the appeal made, however, only by the attorney for the appellant. We cannot grant a motion for dismissal unless same be signed and sworn to by the accused.

The motion to dismiss is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.4    
    


 
  AMENDMENT SEVEN TO THE COCA-COLA COMPANY KEY EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
  AS AMENDED AND RESTATED MARCH 11, 1991
  EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1990    
    


THIS
AMENDMENT to The Coca-Cola Key Executive Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 1990 by indenture dated March 11, 1991 (the "Plan")
[Company Supplemental Benefit Plan (the "Plan") (sic)] is adopted by The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (the "Committee"). 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, Section 7.5 of the Plan provides that the Committee may amend the Plan at any time; 


        WHEREAS,
the Committee wishes to amend the Plan to suspend Plan benefits upon reemployment of a participant; 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the Committee hereby amends the Plan as follows: 


1. 


Effective
June 1, 2004, a new section 4.7 shall be added as follows: 


	4.7
	Reemployment
of a Participant After Commencing Benefits. 



If
a Participant is reemployed by the Company or any subsidiary of the Company in which the Company owns, directly or indirectly, an ownership interest of 80% or more, benefit payments will be
suspended. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, the Participant shall not participate in, be credited with any Benefit Service, or accrue any additional benefits under this Plan during the
period of reemployment. Any Pay received during reemployment shall not be considered Pay and shall not be taken into account in determining Final Average Pay. 




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has adopted this Amendment Seven on the date shown below, but effective as of the dates indicated above. 



	 	 	The Coca-Cola Company Benefits

Committee
	

 	
 	

By	
 	

/s/  BARBARA S. GILBREATH      

	 	 	Date	 	7/28/2004














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.4


AMENDMENT SEVEN TO THE COCA-COLA COMPANY KEY EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AS AMENDED AND RESTATED MARCH 11, 1991 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1990
#### McCOY v. STATE.

No. 19727.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1938.

R. E. Eubank, of Paris, and C. A. Holloway of Clarksville, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

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

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

According to the testimony of appellant, deceased was the aggressor. He said deceased was attacking him with a knife when he fired the fatal shot. Further, there was testimony to the effect that after deceased had been shot a knife with a blade two or three inches long was found in his possession. In .the state of the record, appellant sought to have the court submit an instruction under the provisions of Art. 1223, P.C., which reads as follows: "When the homicide takes place to prevent murder, maiming, disfiguring or castration, if the weapon or means used by the party attempting or committing such murder, maiming, disfiguring or castration are such as would have been calculated to produce that result, it is to be presumed that the person so using them designed to inflict the injury.”

It has been held by this court fhat, where the evidence raises the issue of the use of a deadly weapon by the deceased, it is an absolute presumption, imperative to juries, as well as courts, that' the deceased intended to inflict the injury mentioned 'in Art. 1223, P.G., and further that the provisions of the article must-be given in charge to the *788jury. Yarborough v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 84 S.W.2d 729. The state’s attorney before this court confesses error.

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.
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### ASTAR ABATEMENT INC. VS. DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS

(CC-09-0114)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Charles P. Houdyschell Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant seeks to recover $20,411.77 for additional services that claimant *271provided during an asbestos abatement project (COR61347) for respondent. Although the additional work was authorized by respondent, since it was deemed essential in conjunction with the original scope once the project was initiated, the Department of Administration has final authority on approval/disapproval. Respondent was unable to obtain the approval of the Department of Administration’s Purchasing Division for these additional services in a timely manner.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in that appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid. However, respondent was unable to “get the change order through the Purchasing Division for the additional services that were completed” in a timely manner

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $20,411.77.

Award of $20,411.77.
# C_2022021EN.01000101.xml

| 14.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10444 – RWE GENERATION / MESSER INDUSTRIEGASE / KREIS DÜREN / SIEMENS PROJECT VENTURES / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 21/01)

On 12 October 2021, 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 German language 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 32021M10444. 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 32021M10444. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 16

- 00173

- CV

E MERSON E LECTRIC C O ., D / B / A F USITE
, AND E MERSON C LIMATE T ECHNOLOGIES
, I NC ., Appellants

V

.

C LARENCE J OHNSON AND U NITED S TATES L IABILITY I NSURANCE C OMPANY
, Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048

- 268665

- 13)

October 18, 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s j udgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant s Emerson Electric Co., d/b/a Fusite, and

Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. shall jointly and severally pay all of the costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mark T. Pittman

_ ________________ Justice Mark T. Pittman
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (ET).

# PLACE: 

                        The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# STATUS: 

                        This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via webcast on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to certain rules of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to amend the minimum pricing increments for the quoting of certain NMS stocks, reduce the access fee caps, and enhance the transparency of better priced orders.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

      ( print page 75612)    
Dated: September 11, 2024.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-21061 Filed 9-12-24; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P