alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001029303
<NAME>  Continental Alliance Inc
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022009EN.01000601.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10548 – TELEKOM DEUTSCHLAND / IFM INVESTORS / JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 9/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Telekom Deutschland GmbH (‘TDG’, Germany), controlled by Deutsche Telekom AG (‘DT’, Germany) |
| --- | --- |

—

Telekom Deutschland GmbH (‘TDG’, Germany), controlled by Deutsche Telekom AG (‘DT’, Germany)

| — | IFM Investors Pty Ltd. (‘IFM’, Australia) |
| --- | --- |

—

IFM Investors Pty Ltd. (‘IFM’, Australia)

| — | GlasfaserPlus GmbH (‘JV’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

GlasfaserPlus GmbH (‘JV’, Germany).

TDG and IFM acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for TDG: offer of broadband network, mobile telecommunications, and other telecom services to residential and commercial customers, |
| --- | --- |

—

for TDG: offer of broadband network, mobile telecommunications, and other telecom services to residential and commercial customers,

| — | for IFM: investor-owned global investment manager with assets under management across infrastructure, listed equities, private capital and debt investments, |
| --- | --- |

—

for IFM: investor-owned global investment manager with assets under management across infrastructure, listed equities, private capital and debt investments,

| — | for JV: planning, construction and subsequent operation of an optical fiber telecommunications network in certain rural and less densely populated areas of Germany. |
| --- | --- |

—

for JV: planning, construction and subsequent operation of an optical fiber telecommunications network in certain rural and less densely populated areas of Germany.

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.10548 – TELEKOM DEUTSCHLAND / IFM INVESTORS / JV

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

---
# C_2022393EN.01001401.xml

| 13.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 393/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 393/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10895 – ATHORA / AXA CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 393/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Athora Holding Ltd. (‘Athora’, Bermuda), ultimately controlled by Apollo Global Management, Inc. (‘Apollo’, US), |
| --- | --- |

—

Athora Holding Ltd. (‘Athora’, Bermuda), ultimately controlled by Apollo Global Management, Inc. (‘Apollo’, US),

| — | Axa Customer Solutions Aktiengesellschaft (‘Axa Customer Solutions’, Germany), ultimately controlled by AXA S.A. (France). |
| --- | --- |

—

Axa Customer Solutions Aktiengesellschaft (‘Axa Customer Solutions’, Germany), ultimately controlled by AXA S.A. (France).

Athora will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Axa Customer Solutions.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Athora is active in insurance and reinsurance, mainly in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Germany. Athora is controlled by Apollo, a global alternative asset manager, |
| --- | --- |

—

Athora is active in insurance and reinsurance, mainly in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Germany. Athora is controlled by Apollo, a global alternative asset manager,

| — | Axa Customer Solutions is active in life insurance, predominantly in Germany. It holds a closed book life insurance portfolio of deferred annuities and endowments, representing EUR 19 billion in assets under administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Axa Customer Solutions is active in life insurance, predominantly in Germany. It holds a closed book life insurance portfolio of deferred annuities and endowments, representing EUR 19 billion in assets under administration.

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.10895 – ATHORA / AXA CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS

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

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00014-CR

JOSE FERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 16th District Court

of Denton County (F17-857-16)

February 6, 2020

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

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

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
ZuQuad1-2 PRE FLIGHT CHECK

□ Plan Flight Path

□ Attach RX Antenna

□ Attach RX Display to Controller

□ Switch SD switch Off (UP) - Stable control

□ Power on Controller

□ Set Controller GPS ON / Set IOC OFF

□ Check Battery Voltage

□ Insert Battery for Phantom

□ Power ON / Power ON TX (Switches - 2 Down 1,3,4, Up)

□ Power ON Camera and Set to Desired Photo/Video Mode

□ Place Phantom In CLEAR/SAFE Area

□ Power ON RX / Display

□ Check Power Levels | RX/Display | Camera | Controller

Note: Controller Power should not be bellow 7.0v

□ TEST Video Feed / Adjust Camera Tilt

□ Wait for GREEN Light

□ Set Timer

10 min for ZuQuad1 and 7 min for ZuQuad2

□ Check All Clear / Take Off

□ Switch SD switch On (DOWN) - Stable control

________________________________________________

ZuQuad1-2 BATTERY CHANGE

□ Pause Photo/Video on GoPro

□ Remove Battery for Phantom

□ Log Battery Old and New Battery use

□ Check Battery Voltage

□ Insert New Battery for Phantom

□ Power ON / Power ON TX (Switches - 2 Down 1,3,4, Up)

□ Power ON Camera and Set to Desired Photo/Video Mode

□ Place Phantom In CLEAR/SAFE Area

□ Power ON RX / Display

□ Switch SD switch Off (UP) - Stable control

□ Check Power Levels | RX/Display | Camera | Controller

Note: Controller Power should not be bellow 7.0v

□ Reset Futaba Timer if Flying ZuQuad2

□ TEST Video Feed / Adjust Camera Tilt

□ Wait for GREEN Light

□ Set Timer

10 min for ZuQuad1 and 7 min for ZuQuad2

□ Check All Clear / Take Off

□ Switch SD switch On (DOWN) - Stable control

______________________________________________
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### TERRI HASH VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-0003)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

*264Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when her 2003 Chevrolet Silverado truck struck a protruding concrete curb on Highland Drive in St. Albans, Kanawha County. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred on December 5, 2006. At the time of the incident, claimant testified that she was driving uphill on Highland Drive. As she was driving around a curve at approximately twenty-five miles per hour, she noticed an oncoming vehicle. She then maneuvered her vehicle closer to her right side of the road to avoid the oncoming vehicle when her vehicle’s rear tire struck a protruding concrete curb. Claimant stated that she travels this road multiple times a day, but she did not notice the condition of the curb prior to this incident. As a result, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage to its rear tire in the amount of $298.87.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Highland Drive at the site of claimant’s accident for the date in question. Randy Hammond, Crew Leader for respondent in Kanawha County at the time of the incident, testified that respondent is responsible for maintaining only the travel portion of the road, and the city of St. Albans is responsible for maintaining the curbs and sidewalks in this area. Respondent did not receive complaints regarding the condition of the curb prior to this incident.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins v. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman*v. *Dep’t of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Highland Drive. The Court finds that respondent is not responsible for maintaining the curbs and sidewalks in the city of St. Albans and it was unaware of any incidents involving the condition of the curb prior to this claim. Thus, there is insufficient evidence of negligence on the part of respondent upon which to base an award.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
# C_2022131EN.01000601.xml

| 24.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/6

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 131/06)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2022)1528 | 17 March 2022 | 4-Nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated (4-NPnEO)
  EC No: -, CAS No:- | SEBIA, Parc Technologique Léonard de Vinci, 91090, Lisses, France | REACH/22/8/0 | Industrial use of 4-NPnEO for its detergent properties in the production of buffers and reagents in view of ensuring the positioning of specific proteins necessary for the interpretation of gel electrophoresis in vitro diagnostic tests results based on the determination of isoenzymes | 4 January 2028 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2022)1528

17 March 2022

4-Nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated (4-NPnEO)

EC No: -, CAS No:-

SEBIA, Parc Technologique Léonard de Vinci, 91090, Lisses, France

REACH/22/8/0

Industrial use of 4-NPnEO for its detergent properties in the production of buffers and reagents in view of ensuring the positioning of specific proteins necessary for the interpretation of gel electrophoresis in vitro diagnostic tests results based on the determination of isoenzymes

4 January 2028

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).

---
Comments in Response to

"Final rule; request for comments"

Docket: FAA-20JO-0804 Directorate Identifier 20JO-NM-163-AD

Comments have been received in response to: "Final lillie; request for comments, "

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above.

(Project engineer: Please review any cammel/iS to determine if additional action is warranted.

On.ceyou have made yot/r determination, please fill in the commellter(s) name(.<;)(Jlld check the

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response,

if necessary. Then illclude your /lame and the date in the spaces provided. alld relllrn if £0the

AD directoraTe focal.

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: Air

Line Pilots Assoication, Intemational

(Please check one)

lZJ These comments have not been found to contain any infonnation to warrant reconsideration

or change of this AD.

D These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthilless Directives Mallual

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

L;- J ~'

Nr1lle: '

ItJ/Z-'i5/LOIU

Dale:

(This fonn is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)

Rev 0 (9/08)
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 24 - 00192 - CV IN RE MARIA VELASQUEZ, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### June 2 6 , 202 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Before the Court is the petition of Maria Velasquez, Relator, for writ of mandamus
. Relator asserts that the trial court committed several errors in the underlying proceeding involving Relator’s parental rights. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the relator shows that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curi am). Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure sets forth the required form and content s of a petition for a writ of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3. It is Relator’s burden to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish her rig ht to mandamus2

relief. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Petitions must include, among other things, a proper appendix or record that includes a certif ied or sworn copy of the document showing the matter complained of. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Relator’s petition does not include such a certified or sworn copy . Further, the petition does not include other contents required by Rule 52.3 , such as “ a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record . ” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3 (h). Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is unsupported by a proper record and lacks substantive l egal analysis. Relator has not established her entitlement to mandamus relief. See Walker

, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Accordingly , the petition is denied.
Judy C. Parker Justice
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00307-CV

In the Interest of A.A., a Child §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-103402-16)

February 8, 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 tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mark T. Pi ttman________

________ Justice Mark T. Pittman
#### POND v. STATE.

No. 18724.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1937.

Gray & Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale intoxicating liquor in dry area, punishment assessed being a fine of $100.

The indictment is fatally defective. It merely charged that appellant possessed whisky for the purpose of sale in Cherokee county, Tex., and that said county was “dry area.”

It has been held many times that such an averment is not sufficient to show that local option was in effect in the territory where the transaction is alleged to have occurred. See Whitmire v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 94 S.W. (2d) 742; Schmidt v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 94 S.W.(2d) 743; Coleman v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 97 S.W.(2d) 701; Privitt v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 204; Clepper v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W. (2d) 207; Jones v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 208.

Judgment is reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Exhibit 99(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of IBW Financial Corporation. for
the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, B. Doyle Mitchell, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of IBW Financial Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of IBW Financial Corporation.

/s/ B. Doyle Mitchell, Jr.
-------------------------------------
B. Doyle Mitchell, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:12 PM To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_A._Lallemand@ omb.eop.gov Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew Subject: FW: Joint agencies response to OMB recommendation t o request comment on baselines for the Final Rule Attachments: NHTSA EPA Response to OMB Comments on Baseline 1506 17 1900.docx

Good evening, Attached please find our response to today's commen ts on baseline. -----Original Message----- From: Achanta, Chandana L. [mailto:Chandana_L._Acha nta@omb.eop.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:53 PM To: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov; Spears, Matthew; Hengs t, Benjamin Cc: Whiteman, Chad Subject: Summary of interagency comments received u nder EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of draft NPRM

Please find attached a summary document of interage ncy working comments received on the draft NPRM und er EO 12866 and EO 13563 review.

Thanks Chandana
<PAGE>   1
              [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM ENGINEERS LETTERHEAD]

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Pennzoil
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 2-67268,
2-76935, 2-95869, 33-24261, 33-40192, 33-51473, 33-53783 and 33-63384 and on
Form S-3 Nos. 33-50029 and 33-50953 of our summary report dated February 3,
1997 included as Exhibit 99(a) to this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the data
extracted from our reports and the references to our firm appearing in "Item 1.
Business and Item 2. Properties" under the captions "Oil and Gas - Oil and Gas
Reserves" and in "Supplemental Financial and Statistical Information -
Unaudited - Oil and Gas Information" in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                            /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                                PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
                                            --------------------------
                                                RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                                PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Houston, Texas
February 25, 1997