alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022474EN.01002801.xml

| 14.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 474/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 474/28

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10943 – ENEL / CVC CAPITAL PARTNERS / GRIDSPERTISE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 474/05)

On 28 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 32022M10943. 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 32022M10943. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022262EN.01001901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/19 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10740 – CUMMINS / MERITOR)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 262/12)

1.

On 29 June 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022262EN.01001901-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

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

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

Cummins will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Meritor.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Cummins is a global company that manufactures, distributes and services diesel and alternative fuel engines and generators, as well as powertrain-related components and technology, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Meritor is a global supplier of axles, brakes, and other modules and components to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. |

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_2022262EN.01001901-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.10740 – CUMMINS / MERITOR

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_2022262EN.01001901-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_2022262EN.01001901-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Exhibit 10.67




Exhibit 10.67 



THIRD AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT OF SALE AND
PURCHASE 





        THIS
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE (this “Third
Amendment”) is entered into as of the 20th day of October,
2004, by and between MACK-CALI TEXAS PROPERTY L.P., a Texas limited partnership
(“Seller”), and CENTENNIAL ACQUISITION COMPANY, a Texas corporation, and
WARAMAUG ACQUISITION CORP., a Texas corporation (collectively,
“Purchaser”). 



        A.              Seller
and Purchaser entered into that certain Agreement of Sale and Purchase           dated as
of August 10, 2004, as amended by that certain Amendment to Agreement           of Sale
and Purchase between Seller and Purchaser dated as of October 12,           2004,
and as amended by that certain Second Amendment to Agreement of Sale and
          Purchase between Seller and Purchaser dated as of October 18, 2004 (as
          amended to date, the “Purchase Agreement”). All
          capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning given such
          terms in the Purchase Agreement.  




        B.              Seller
and Purchaser now desire to amend the Purchase Agreement as set forth           below.  




        NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser agree as follows: 



        1.    Evaluation
Period.   The expiration of the Evaluation Period           is hereby
extended to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 21, 2004.  




        2.    Reaffirmation.  
Except as modified by this Third Amendment,           the Purchase Agreement is hereby
ratified and confirmed and in full force and           effect. In the event of a conflict
between the terms of this Third Amendment and           the Purchase Agreement, the terms
of this Third Amendment shall control.  




        3.    Counterparts.  
This Third Amendment may be executed in any           number of counterparts, all of
which taken together will constitute one and the           same Third Amendment, and the
signature page of any counterpart may be removed           therefrom and attached to any
other counterpart. This Third Amendment shall be           legally binding upon receipt
by each party of the facsimile or the original           signature of Seller and of
Purchaser.  




      [SIGNATURES
FOLLOW ON NEXT SUCCEEDING PAGE]













        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Third Amendment as of the day and year
first above written. 



			PURCHASER:

CENTENNIAL ACQUISITION COMPANY

By:  /s/ Steven H. Levin

——————————————
Name:  Steven H. Levin
Title:  President












			WARAMAUG ACQUISITION CORP.


By:  /s/  Cindy Nelson

——————————————
Name:  Cindy Nelson
Title:  Vice President












			SELLER:

MACK-CALI TEXAS PROPERTY L.P.


By:  Mack-Cali Sub XVII, Inc., its general partner



      By:  /s/  Roger W. Thomas
      ———————————
      Name:  Roger W. Thomas

      Title:  Executive Vice President
                   and General Counsel








2
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21371]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, 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 C. 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 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 334 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-676, CP2024-685.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21371 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2022388EN.01000401.xml

| 10.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/4 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

NOTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK WITHDRAWING THE NOTICE ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF BALANCE SHEET STATISTICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (2022/C 388/04) Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank ( 1 ) (ECB) provides that, where a reporting agent subject to reporting requirements and residing in a participating Member State fails to comply with the obligations resulting from that Regulation and ECB regulations or decisions defining and imposing the ECB’s statistical reporting requirements, sanctions may be imposed by the ECB. Certain elements of the sanctions policy were published in the Notice of the European Central Bank on the imposition of sanctions for infringements of balance sheet statistical reporting requirements ( 2 ). Those elements were subsequently addressed in Decision ECB/2010/10 of the European Central Bank of 19 August 2010 on non-compliance with statistical reporting requirements ( 3 ) and are now addressed in Regulation (EU) 2022/1917 of the European Central Bank of 29 September 2022 on infringement procedures in cases of non-compliance with statistical reporting requirements (ECB/2022/31) ( 4 ) and Decision (EU) 2022/1921 of the European Central Bank of 29 September 2022 on the methodology for the calculation of sanctions for alleged infringements of statistical reporting requirements (ECB/2022/32) ( 5 ). Notice 2004/C 195/10 is hereby withdrawn with effect on the twentieth day following that of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. ( 1 )  OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 8. ( 2 )  OJ C 195, 31.7.2004, p. 8. ( 3 )  OJ L 226, 28.8.2010, p. 8. ( 4 )  OJ L 263, 10.10.2022, p. 6. ( 5 )  OJ L 263, 10.10.2022, p. 59.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10323

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL EMEKA NWOKOLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-159-D

- - - - - - - - - -

May 9, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel Emeka Nwokolo appeals his conviction following a jury

trial for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

heroin and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. 

Nwokolo cannot demonstrate clear error affecting his

substantial rights from the Government’s questions eliciting

answers Nwokolo alleges improperly injected ethnicity into the

trial in an attempt to inflame the jury, as he cannot show that
No. 96-10323

- 2 -

any injection of ethnicity was so pronounced and persistent that

it permeated the entire atmosphere of his trial. See United

States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1497 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

117 S. Ct. 180, and cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 236, and cert.

denied, 117 S. Ct. 502 (1996); United States v. Calverley, 37

F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

The district court did not err by admitting evidence that

was not alleged in the indictment. Nwokolo did not suffer

prejudice to his substantial rights as the evidence supported the

showing at trial of the existence of only a single conspiracy as

alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Jensen, 41 F.3d

946, 956 (5th Cir. 1994).

The record regarding the merits of Nwokolo’s ineffective

assistance-of-counsel claim is not fully developed. Accordingly,

this court declines to address it. See United States v. Higdon,

832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).

Nwokolo has failed to argue his issue that the district

court erred by denying his motion to sever. He has also failed

to independently argue his issues that he was denied his right to

confront the witnesses against him and that there was

insufficient evidence to support the verdict. He raised these

last issues in an attempt to demonstrate prejudice due to

ineffective assistance of counsel. Nwokolo has abandoned these

issues through his failure to adequately argue them. 

Accordingly, this court declines to address them. See United
No. 96-10323

- 3 -

States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir.

1991).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.3



OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING GROUP, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a),
AS AMENDED



I, Ian T. Blackley, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.;
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 23, 2015 | /s/ Ian T. Blackley    
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Ian T. Blackley        
|                     | Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of ADDvantage Technologies
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth A. Chymiak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec 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 operations of the
Company.


/S/ Kenneth A. Chymiak
------------------------
    Kenneth A. Chymiak
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
    January 9, 2003
Form DGO-GO-15 

Rev. 6/09 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy 

Division of Gas and Oil 

P.O. Box 159, 135 Highlands Drive 

Lebanon, VA 24266 

(276) 415-9700

Permit Number: 

COMPLETION REPORT

Well type: Oil Gas Coalbed Methane Injection Well 

Date Well Completed: Total Depth: 

Attach the Drilling Report if not previously submitted. In addition, submit any changes in casing or tubing that were 

approved after the Drilling Report was submitted. 

STIMULATION RECORD (Use additional sheets with this format, if more than three zones are stimulated.) 

ZONE 1: Formation Stimulated With: 

Perforated to No. of Perforations Perforation Size 

Formation Broke down at: PSIG Average Injection Rate: (PSIG) 

ISIP (PSIG) MIN SIP. (PSIG) Average Downhole Injection Pressure (PSIG) 

Stimulated: Yes No Date Stimulated: 

 

ZONE 2: Formation Stimulated With: 

Perforated to No. of Perforations Perforation Size 

Formation Broke down at: PSIG Average Injection Rate: (PSIG) 

ISIP (PSIG) MIN SIP. (PSIG) Average Downhole Injection Pressure (PSIG) 

Stimulated: Yes No Date Stimulated: 

ZONE 3: Formation Stimulated With: 

Perforated to No. of Perforations Perforation Size 

Formation Broke down at: PSIG Average Injection Rate: (PSIG) 

ISIP (PSIG) MIN SIP. (PSIG) Average Downhole Injection Pressure (PSIG) 

Stimulated: Yes No Date Stimulated: 

 FINAL RODUCTION: Natural After Stimulation 

 BOD MCFD HOURS 

TESTED 

ROCK 

PRESSURE 

HOURS 

TESTED 

ZONE (1) 

ZONE (2) 

ZONE (3) 

Final production if gas zones are commingled MCFD Hours Tested 

 PS16 Hours Tested 

 

Permittee: (Company) 

By: (Signature) Date:
Exhibit 24.4
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  (1)
    
    To execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigneds
capacity as a director and/or officer of Spartech Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the Company), Form 10-K in accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder;
 (2)
    
    To do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 10-K complete
and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or similar
authority; and
 (3)
    
    To take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in
the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood
that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned
pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such
terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such
attorney-in-facts discretion.
   th
 /s/ Victoria M. HoltSignatureVictoria M. HoltPrint Name
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60426

WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC,

A Corporation,

Plaintiff-Counter DefendantAppellant,

v.

DEERE & COMPANY; ET AL,

Defendants,

DEERE & COMPANY,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee,

- - - - - - - -

DEERE & COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

v.

REX MORGAN; ET AL,

Defendants,

WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC,

A Corporation,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

2:04-CV-136
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant West Implement Company argues that the district

court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Deere

& Company with respect to its breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Assuming arguendo that a fiduciary relationship existed between the

parties, because West has not raised a genuine issue of material

fact regarding whether Deere’s conduct violated any of their

agreements, no breach was demonstrated. See Carter Equipment

Company v. John Deere, 681 F.2d 386, 392 n.14 (5th Cir. 1982)

(“activity in conformance with the terms of the contract cannot

amount to misconduct that constitutes a breach of a fiduciary

duty”) (citation omitted). The district court properly granted

summary judgment as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. 

West next argues that the district court erred in allowing

Deere to present its case in chief first. We find that West has

failed to show that the court abused its broad discretion in

controlling the order of proof. See Huddleston v. United States,

485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988). 

Finally, West argues that the district court erred in awarding

attorney’s fees to Deere because although the jury could have

awarded punitive damages, it declined to do so. Contrary to West’s
3

argument otherwise, the Mississippi Supreme Court has made clear

that so long as an award of punitive damages would be proper, “such

an actual awarding of punitive damages is not a prerequisite for

the awarding of attorney fees.” Aqua-Culture Technologies, Ltd.

v. Holly, 677 So.2d 171, 185 (Miss. 1996). The district court’s

award of attorney’s fees is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.