alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCWC-17-0000570 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
SHAUN WRIGHT and ANNETT WRIGHT, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs. MIYAKE CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and MIYAKE CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. SAMUEL S. KIYABU, dba KIYABU CONSTRUCTION, INC., SANDPIPER CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Hawai # i corporation, DESPINS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Hawai # i corporation, BRIAN SHIMOMURA and BRIAN SHIMOMURA & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Hawai # i Limited Liability Company, Respondents/Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

(CIVIL NO. 09-1-0748(3))
DESPINS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Counter-Defendant-Appellee,

vs. SHAUN WRIGHT and ANNETT WRIGHT, Respondents/Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees,

(CIVIL NO. 10-1-0191(3)) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000570 29-DEC-2017 03:05 PMMIYAKE CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC., a Hawai # i corporation, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. BRIAN SHIMOMURA and BRIAN SHIMOMURA & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Hawai # i Limited Liability Company,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. (CIVIL NO. 11-1-0153(1))

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-17-0000098 and CAAP-17-0000570) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )

It appearing that there is no judgment on appeal or dismissal order filed in the above-referenced matter, see Hawai # i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/PlaintiffAppellant’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on December 18, 2017, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2014). (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 29, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
# C_2022287EN.01008101.xml

| 28.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/81

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10813 – BLACKSTONE / CPP INVESTMENTS / ADVARRA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 287/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Blackstone, Inc. (‘Blackstone’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Blackstone, Inc. (‘Blackstone’, USA),

| — | Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (‘CPP Investments’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (‘CPP Investments’, Canada),

| — | Advarra Holdings, Inc. (‘Advarra’, USA). |
| --- | --- |

—

Advarra Holdings, Inc. (‘Advarra’, USA).

Blackstone and CPP Investments will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Advarra.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Blackstone: a global alternative asset manager. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Blackstone: a global alternative asset manager.

| — | for CPP Investments: an investment management organisation that invests the funds transferred to it from the Canada Pension Plan. CPP Investments principally invests in public equities, private equities, real state, infrastructure and fixed income investments. |
| --- | --- |

—

for CPP Investments: an investment management organisation that invests the funds transferred to it from the Canada Pension Plan. CPP Investments principally invests in public equities, private equities, real state, infrastructure and fixed income investments.

| — | for Advarra: a provider of ethical review services and technology solutions to biopharma companies, contract research organizations, and clinical trial sites. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Advarra: a provider of ethical review services and technology solutions to biopharma companies, contract research organizations, and clinical trial sites.

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 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10813 – BLACKSTONE / CPP INVESTMENTS / ADVARRA

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

---
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-39549 and 333-92225) and Form S-8 (Nos.
33-25218, 33-50847, 33-50849, 33-58778, 333-15189, 333-15259, 333-38713,
333-38881, 333-42683, 333-68147, 333-82679, 333-82677, 333-91771, 333-91951,
333-91955, 333-35080, 333-51644, and 333-51648) of Applera Corporation of our
reports dated July 26, 2001 relating to the combined financial statements of the
Applied Biosystems group, the combined financial statements of the Celera
Genomics group and the consolidated financial statements of Applera Corporation,
which appear in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated July 26, 2001 relating to the financial statement schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
September 26, 2001
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. and Subsidiaries 

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-68856, No. 33-53001, No. 33-57813, and No. 333-28749 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements No. 33-91494, No. 33-07397 and No. 33-67180 on Form S-8 of Acceptance InsuranceCompanies Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated July 8, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to uncertainties that raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continueas a going concern discussed in Note 1 and the restatement discussed in Note 2), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Omaha, Nebraska 

July 16, 2004
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas C. Chesterman, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AradigmCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ THOMAS C. CHESTERMAN    Thomas C. Chesterman  *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*   Dated: November 11, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned  hereby  certifies,  for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Travis
Boats & Motors,  Inc.  ("Travis Boats"),  that, to his knowledge,  the Quarterly
Report of Travis Boats on Form 10-Q for the period  ended March 21, 2004,  fully
complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information  contained in such report fairly  presents,  in
all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operation of
Travis Boats.  This written  statement is being  furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed  original of this
statement has been provided to Travis Boats and will be retained by Travis Boats
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.

Date: August 20, 2004




                          By:   /s/  Mark T. Walton
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Mark T. Walton
                                President


Date: August 18, 2004     By:   /s/ Michael B. Perrine
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Michael B. Perrine
                                Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
#### MILLER v. STATE.

No. 18732.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1937.

*236Tom Bartlett, of Marlin, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft of chickens, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.

By bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains of the action of the court in overruling his motion to quash the indictment: First, because it fails to show that the grand jury was duly organized in the county of Falls and state of Texas; second, because the indictment fails to charge that said Henry Miller intended to appropriate the chickens to his own use and benefit. The indictment reads as follows:

> “In the Name and by Authority of the State of Texas:

> “The Grand Jury, for the County of Falls duly organized as such at the March Term, A.D.1936, of the District Court for said County in said Court at said term, do present that Henry Miller on or about the 16th. day of March A.D.1936, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, in the County of Falls and State of Texas, did then and there fraudulently take four chickens the same being the corporeal personal property of Pete Gomez from the possession of the said Pete Gomez without the consent of the said Pete Gomez with the intent to deprive the said Pete Gomez of the value thereof, and with the intent to appropriate it to the use and benefit of him, the said Henry Miller against the peace and dignity of the State.”

We deem the indictment sufficient as it contains all the essential requirements under article 396, C.C.P.192S.

Appellant urged a number of objections, to the court’s charge. A careful review of the charge in the light of the objections leads us to the conclusion that the same is not subject to the objections addressed thereto.

Appellant’s objection to the intro^ duction of his confession is without merit. The confession shows upon its face that he was duly warned by John C. Patterson that he did not have to make any statement at all concerning the offense with which he was charged; that any statement which he did make concerning said offense could be used against him on the trial of said case; that it was signed by appellant.

We think the confession was obtained in the manner prescribed by article *727, C.C.*P.1925.

All other matters complained of have been considered and deemed to be without merit.

The judgment of the trial court 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.
Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF PINNACLE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC

We have issued our report letter dated January 26,
2011 for 2010, on estimates of proved reserves and future net cash flows of certain oil and natural gas properties located in the Permian Basin of West Texas acquired by Gulfport Energy Corporation (Gulfport). As independent oil and gas
consultants, we hereby consent to the inclusion of the information contained in our report letter in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulfport (this Annual Report) and to all references to our firm in this Annual Report. We hereby also
consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the Registration Statements of Gulfport on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-135728, effective July 12, 2006; File No. 333-129178, effective October 21, 2005; and File
No. 333-55738, effective February 16, 2001) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-168180, effective July 28, 2010).



PINNACLE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC/s/    JOHN PAUL DICKName:

John Paul DickTitle:

Manager, Registered Petroleum Engineer


March 11, 2011

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Consent of Financial Advisor


We consent to the use of our fairness opinion letter dated January 20, 2000 and
the update to be dated as of the date of the Prospectus/Proxy Statement forming
a part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by First Merchants
Corporation in connection with the proposed merger of Decatur Financial, Inc. to
be included in such Prospectus/Proxy Statement, subject to the issuance of such
opinion by us. We further consent to the references to our fairness opinion
letter and the analysis conducted by us and the use of our name in such Proxy
Statement/Prospectus in conjunction therewith.







RENNINGER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Carmel, Indiana
March 24, 2000


                                   Ex. 23(d)-1
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

I, Robert J. Krist, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 8, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert J. Krist    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Robert J. Krist        
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies
the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
SI()-l()04()7-().' 

OFFICE OF TM£ MAYOR 

March 25, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 _ 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-^« 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express our support for the application for antitrust 

immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan 

Airlines (AA/JAL). The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld 

to compete effectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliance. This increased interaUiance 

competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the department's Open Skies policy - first 

by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further 

liberalization across Asia. 

We encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it would 

enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly 

competitive air transportation services. Approval for the AA/JAL alliance will have a 

positive impact on ait travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing 

options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three 

competitive air alliances from which to choose. 

I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of this application. 

Sincerely, 

ANTHONY G. CHAVONNE. MAYOR 

433 HAY STREET 

FAYETTEVILLE.NC 28301-5537 

(910)433-1992/FAX (910) 433-1948 

www.cityoffayetteville.org
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIPRIAN MATEI VLAD and EVELYN KLARA GRIM, AKA Evelyn Grim

- Smout,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70331

Agency Nos. A089

- 331

- 239

A089

- 421

- 072

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

S ubmitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ciprian Matei Vlad a nd Evelyn Klara Grim, natives and citizens of

Romania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We revi ew for substantial evidence

* 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

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 70331

factual findings

, and review de novo questions of law. Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d

1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners are

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) due to each having procured a visa

through a fraudulent marriage, where the government presented clear and

convincing evidence that they did not intend to establish a li fe with their respecti ve

United States citizen spouse s at the inception of their marriage s

. See Nakamoto v.

Ashcroft , 363 F.3d 874, 881

- 82 (9th Cir. 2004) (in determining whether an alien

entered into a marriage for the purpose of procuring admission into the United

States , the focus of the inquiry is whether the couple intended to establish a life

together at the time they were married ; this court must affirm the IJ’ s ruling unless

the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the

facts were a s [the alien] alleged”).

To the extent petitioners contend the agency err ed in considering evidence

after the time of their respective marriage s , this contention fails because such

evidence may “bear on the subjective intent of the parties at the time the y were

married.” Oropeza

- Wong v. Gonzales , 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005)

(citation omitted).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA improperly shifted the burden of proof3 16

- 70331

onto them is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ u nexhausted contentions that

they w ere not given a proper individualized inquiry, and that the IJ improperly

shifted the burden of proof onto them

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.