alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022208EN.01000601.xml

| 24.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10658 – NORSK HYDRO / ALUMETAL)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 208/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Norsk Hydro ASA (‘Hydro’, Norway), |
| --- | --- |

—

Norsk Hydro ASA (‘Hydro’, Norway),

| — | Alumetal S.A. (‘Alumetal’, Poland). |
| --- | --- |

—

Alumetal S.A. (‘Alumetal’, Poland).

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

The concentration is accomplished by way of a public bid.

2.

| — | Hydro is a fully integrated aluminium company, and has activities throughout the aluminium value chain from bauxite, alumina and energy generation to the production of primary aluminium, aluminium extruded products and aluminium recycling. In particular, Hydro produces foundry alloys based mainly on primary aluminium. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hydro is a fully integrated aluminium company, and has activities throughout the aluminium value chain from bauxite, alumina and energy generation to the production of primary aluminium, aluminium extruded products and aluminium recycling. In particular, Hydro produces foundry alloys based mainly on primary aluminium.

| — | Alumetal is mainly a producer of aluminium foundry alloys produced mainly from secondary aluminium. Alumetal also produces master alloys, which it uses internally but also sells to third party customers, including Hydro. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alumetal is mainly a producer of aluminium foundry alloys produced mainly from secondary aluminium. Alumetal also produces master alloys, which it uses internally but also sells to third party customers, including Hydro.

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.10658 – NORSK HYDRO / ALUMETAL

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

---
Exhibit 23


                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No.
1 on Form S-3 (No. 33-44380 and 333-36415) and in the Registration Statements on
Form  S-8  (Nos.  33-26442,  33-6141,  33-26443,  33-29144,  33-19012,  2-67317,
33-34363,  33-34362,  33-62648 and 333-42231) of Phelps Dodge Corporation of our
report dated  January 15, 1998,  except as to Note 2, which is as of February 3,
1998,  appearing  in this Form 10-K.  We also  consent to the  incorporation  by
reference of our report on the Financial  Statement  Schedule,  which appears in
this Form 10-K.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 16, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 276 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 276

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using Federal funds 
    for the position of Public Advocate, or the position of Deputy 
 Assistant Director of Custody Programs and Community Outreach, within 
   U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2015

  Mrs. Black introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using Federal funds 
    for the position of Public Advocate, or the position of Deputy 
 Assistant Director of Custody Programs and Community Outreach, within 
   U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Immigration Compliance Enforcement 
(ICE) Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.

    None of the funds made available by any Federal law may be used to 
provide funding for--
            (1) the position of Public Advocate within U.S. Immigration 
        and Customs Enforcement;
            (2) the position of Deputy Assistant Director of Custody 
        Programs and Community Outreach within U.S. Immigration and 
        Customs Enforcement; or
            (3) any other position within U.S. Customs and Immigration 
        Enforcement the functions of which are substantially similar to 
        those which were assigned to the position of--
                    (A) Public Advocate within U.S. Immigration and 
                Customs Enforcement; or
                    (B) Deputy Assistant Director of Custody Programs 
                and Community Outreach within U.S. Immigration and 
                Customs Enforcement.
                                 <all>
```
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
#### ROSS v. STATE.

No. 19217.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1937.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area; penalty assessed at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and a fine of $100.

The complaint and information appear regular. The record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts. In the absence of the evidence heard upon the trial, this court is unable to appraise the matters presented in the motion for new trial.

The judgment is affirmed'.
Notice of Issuance of Restricted Stock for Nickolas W. Vande Steeg



 Exhibit 10(a) 
  
 

 
  

	TO:	Nickolas Vande Steeg 

  
 October 29, 2004 
  
 NOTICE OF
ISSUANCE OF RESTRICTED STOCK 
  
 On August 11, 2004, pursuant to the 2003
Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) granted to the Chief Executive Officer the authority on behalf of the Corporation to issue you
10,000 restricted shares of Parker-Hannifin Corporation Common Stock. Based on such authority, I hereby confirm these restricted shares (the “Shares”) will be issued subject to the following terms and conditions: 
  

	1.	Shares will be issued as of October 29, 2004. 

  

	2.	Ownership of the shares will become vested (i.e., unrestricted) on October 29, 2007. During the vesting period, the shares cannot be sold or otherwise transferred or assigned.


  

	 	a.	Shares vest immediately in the event of your retirement at or after December 31, 2006. 

  

	 	b.	Shares are forfeited in the event of (i) your death or disability; (ii) your voluntary termination of employment (except due to retirement (as specified in (a) above); or (iii) the
involuntary termination of your employment. 

  

	3.	Shares will vest immediately in the event of a “change in control” of the Corporation (as defined in the Plan). 

  

	4.	Certificates representing the Shares will not be issued during the vesting period. Rather, the shares will be issued in an uncertificated book entry format at the transfer agent.


  

	5.	Shares will earn non-refundable dividends during the vesting period, payable directly to you. 

  

	6.	Upon vesting, the value of the Shares will become taxable income to you. You will be obligated to reimburse the Corporation for all withholding taxes payable by the Corporation at
such time. At your election, you may surrender a portion of the shares to satisfy such withholding taxes. Unreimbursed amounts will be subject to payroll withholding. 









	7.	To the extent not otherwise specified above, the issuance of the Shares is subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan. 

  
 Please confirm your receipt of this Notice and indicate your acknowledgment and agreement to
the terms specified herein by signing and returning a copy of this Notice to Tom Piraino. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 /s/ D.E. Washkewicz 
 Donald E. Washkewicz 
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 
  

					
	 /s/ N.W. Vande Steeg

	 	Date:	 	 October 29, 2004


	Nickolas Vande Steeg
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 MIKE COHEN, 7 Worker-Appellant, 8 v. No. 30,336 9 CMC CONSTRUCTION, INC. 10 OF N.M., and BUILDERS TRUST, 11 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 12 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 13 Terry S. Kramer, District Judge 14 Titus & Murphy Law Firm 15 Victor A. Titus 16 Farmington, NM 17 for Appellant 18 David L. Skinner 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellees 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 SUTIN, Judge. 232 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 3 AFFIRMED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

________________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 10

________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12
#### BLACKERBY v. STATE.

No. 18623.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1936.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1937.

*240Israel Smith, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

O. O. Johnson, the injured party, testified, in substance, as follows: On November 3, 1935, he met appellant and Walter Thomason at a sandwich shop in the city of Tyler, and accepted their offer to take him home in their automobile. While they were riding in the car some one struck him on the head and he was momentarily rendered unconscious. When he regained consciousness he was out of the car. Thomason was in front of him, searching his pockets and some one behind him was also making a search. One dollar and seventy five cents was taken from his possession. After he had been robbed, appellant and Thomason left him by the side of the road and drove away. An officer testified to having gone to the scene of the robbery. He said he found the tracks of two men and a woman there. He also found a broken beer bottle nearby.

Appellant did not testify.

Bills of exceptions 1 to 3, inclusive, are concerned with remarks of the trial judge in the presence of the jury. These bills are qualified by the trial judge to show that appellant interposed no objection or exception to the remarks. In view of the qualification, the questions sought to be presented cannot be reviewed.

Bill of exception No. 4 is concerned with the testimony of an officer to the effect that he observed the tracks of a woman and two men at the scene of the alleged robbery. These tracks were observed the morning after the robbery. We are of opinion that the testimony was admissible, as tending to corroborate the version of the injured party.

Bill of exception No. 5 is qualified to show that appellant failed to except to the action of the court in sustaining an objection of the district attorney to certain testimony offered by appellant. Hence the ruling of the trial court is not subject to review.

The j udgment 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.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

In a motion filed by appellant herself, she assails the sufficiency of the testimony. We have again reviewed same. Clearly, if the jury believed the prosecuting witness, this appellant and another acted together in robbing him. We cannoi say that the jury were without testimony to support their conclusion. Appellant and the other party, a young man, had taken the injured party in a car, which appellant drove, out in the country some distance to the point where he said he was robbed by the joint efforts of two people, one in the front, and the other in his rear, who was going over his body in conjunction with the one in front. We cannot say that the record is without testimony to support the judgment.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
SC WC

- 2 4

- 0000 028

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

_______________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I , Respondent / Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v s

.

SHAWN J. MEDEIROS, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant

.

_______________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 2 4

- 0000 028 ; CASE NO. 2CPC

- 22

- 0000677 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins , Ginoza, and Devens, JJ

. )

Petitioner Shawn J. Medeiros’ application for writ of

certiorari, filed on July 22, 2024 , is hereby rejected

.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, August 22, 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s / Vladimir P. Devens Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-24-0000028 22-AUG-2024 10:00 AM Dkt. 5 ODAC
# C_2022474EN.01002501.xml

| 14.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 474/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 474/25

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10349 – AMAZON / MGM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 474/02)

On 15 March 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 32022M10349. 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 32022M10349. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-172-CR

JOHN THOMAS CRAWFORD APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant John Thomas Crawford pleaded guilty to possession of one

gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine. A jury assessed

punishment of seven years’ confinement, and the trial court sentenced

Appellant accordingly.
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

2

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. Appellant was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief,

but he did not do so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of

the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the

appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because

Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential

error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of

Appellant’s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of

guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State,

99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656,

666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 30, 2009
<TABLE>
TELCO COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE


WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES

     The  weighted  average  number of shares of common  stock and common  stock
     equivalents,  after adjusting for the 425-to-1 stock split,  was determined
     as follows:

     For all periods presented prior to the initial public offering, outstanding
     options for common  stock  granted  within 12 months of the initial  filing
     date of the initial public offering have been included in the  calculations
     of common and common equivalent shares outstanding using the treasury stock
     method based on the initial  public  offering price of $14 per share as the
     market price.

                       Three months ended June 30,     Six months ended June 30,
                       (in thousands, except per       (in thousands, except per
                              share data)                      share data)
                        -------------------------       -----------------------

                              1996         1997           1996          1997
                              ----         ----           ----          ----
<S>                           <C>        <C>             <C>          <C>
Common Stock:
    Shares outstanding
      beginning of period    20,864      33,062         20,864        32,755
    Shares issued during
      period, net (1)             0          41              0           246
    SEC SAB 83 shares (2)                                  
                              5,889           0          5,889             0
                             26,753      33,103         26,753        33,001

Common Stock Equivalents:
    Options (3)                 956       1,447            956         1,391
    Warrants (4)                       
                                636           0            636             0
                              1,592       1,447          1,592         1,391

Weighted average number
    of shares                28,345      34,550         28,345        34,392

Net income (loss)            $5,186      $8,580         $8,466       $15,440

Net income (loss) per share  $ 0.18      $ 0.25         $ 0.30       $  0.45
      
---------------------------------------------

(1)    Weighted average shares issued
(2)    Shares and employee options issued from            7,094
          June 14, 1997 through June 13, 1996
       Less shares reacquired under treasury
          stock method                                    1,205    
                                                         -------     
       Net SAB 83 shares                                  5,889  
                                                         =======
                                       
(3)   Options granted, less shares acquired under treasury
         stock method, on a weighted average basis.

(4)    Represents warrant held by Signet Media Capital Group to purchase
          636,158 shares of common stock at a nominal exercise price.
</TABLE>
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P ALIGN="RIGHT">Exhibit 23</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<FONT SIZE=4><P ALIGN="CENTER">ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP</P>
</FONT>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<B><U><P ALIGN="CENTER">CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS</P>
</B></U>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated October 29, 1999, included in this Form 10-K, into Peoples Energy Corporation's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 2-82760,
33-6369, 333-17701, 33-63193 and 333-09993.</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Chicago, Illinois,</P>

<P>December 20, 1999</P>

<P> </P></BODY>
</HTML>