alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 44432-8-I.

Division One.

November 6, 2000.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*William L. True, *Respondent,*and Penelope J. True, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-3-08689-5, Richard D. Eadie, J., entered April 1, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Becker, A.C.J., and Cox, J. Now published at 104 Wn. App. 291.
Exhibit 32.2  Statement of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:  (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    February 22, 2007  /S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022428EN.01004401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/44 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10912 – CD&R / ATALIAN)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 428/10)

1.

On 27 October 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022428EN.01004401-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund XI, LP (‘CD&R’, Cayman Islands), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | La Financière Atalian S.A.S (‘Atalian’, France). |

CD&R will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Atalian.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CD&R is a private equity investment firm, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Atalian provides contract foodservices and facility management services. |

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_2022428EN.01004401-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.10912 – CD&R / ATALIAN

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_2022428EN.01004401-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_2022428EN.01004401-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
# C_2022444EN.01000401.xml

| 23.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 444/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 444/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10928 – ICI / BENVIC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 444/04)

On 8 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 32022M10928. 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 32022M10928. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
**ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES INC.**

**SCHEDULE II - (Continued)CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANTYEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001, 2000, AND 1999**

----

The Company aggregates cash and short-term investments with maturity dates ofthree months or less from the date of purchase for purposes of reporting cashflows.

Included in the Net Investment Income is $1.8 million, $3.6 million and $5.4million of interest income on surplus notes from subsidiaries for the yearsended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 respectively.

Cash payments for interest were $8.5 million, $8.5 million and $9.0 millionduring the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification 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 quarterly report of Netopia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Alan B. Lefkof, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By:

/s/ Alan B. LefkofAlan B. Lefkof President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 9, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21384]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA


Publication of Fiscal Year 2023 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District 
of Columbia (CSOSA).

ACTION: Notice of public availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the FY2010 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Court Services and Offender 
Supervision Agency hereby advises the public of the availability of the 
FY 2020 Service Contract Inventory. This analysis provides information 
on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY2022. The 
information is organized by function to show how contracted resources 
are distributed throughout the agency. This inventory analysis and plan 
have been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 
2010, and December 19, 2011, by the Office of Management and Budget's 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). CSOSA's FY2022 Service 
Contract Inventory Analysis, and the FY2023 Service Contract Inventory 
Plan is available on CSOSA's website at: CSOSA-SCI-2022-2023-Analysis-
Report.pdf. CSOSA's FY 2022 service contract inventory data is included 
in the government-wide inventory posted on www.acquisition.gov and the 
government-wide inventory can be filtered to display the inventory data 
for CSOSA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reggie James, Senior Procurement 
Executive, Associate Director, Office of Administration, 800 N Capitol 
St. NW, Washington, DC 20002, at (202) 220-5707 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17457270707e72395d767a726457746478647639707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82d0e7e5e5ebe7acc8e3efe7f1c2e1f1edf1e3ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 13, 2024.
Willis Stamps,
Supervisory Attorney-Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2024-21384 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3129-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00070-CV

ANDREW WALKER, JR., Appellant

V.

WANDA DANIELS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF CARLES B. DANIELS, DECEASED, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-1518-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Andrew Walker, Jr., proceeding pro se, has filed an appeal in this Court. Upon our 

review of Walker’s filing, we noted a potential defect in the Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 11.102 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that “[a]

vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 is prohibited from filing, pro 

se, new litigation in a court to which the order applies without seeking the permission of . . . the 

local administrative judge.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(a). Although the

clerk of this Court may file an appeal from a prefiling order, the clerk “may not file a litigation, 

original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a 

prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate 

local administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a), (d). 

The 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County issued its order in trial court cause 

number 2021-1518-B, styled Wanda Daniels, Individually and as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Carles B. Daniels, Deceased v. Highland Dallas Freight, Inc., Hana L. Kassa, and 

Andrew Walker, Jr., on April 24, 2023, prohibiting Walker from filing any new litigation in a 

court of this State without first obtaining permission from a local administrative judge. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101–.103. 

By letter dated November 15, 2023, we notified Walker of this potential defect in our 

jurisdiction, along with another potential jurisdictional defect, namely, that Walker is attempting 

to appeal from an unappealable, interlocutory order. We afforded Walker the opportunity to 
3

show this Court how it had jurisdiction over this appeal, including the filing of a supplemental 

record, if necessary. We further informed Walker that the failure to respond by November 27, 

2023, would result in dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(a). Although Walker responded to our letter, his response failed to demonstrate proper 

grounds for our retention of this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Scott E. Stevens

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 30, 2023

Date Decided: December 1, 2023
#### WITHERS v. BOLLIGER.

No. 12942.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Oct. 14, 1933.

*428M. Kleberg, of Port Worth, for appellant.

J. W. Stitt and Goree & Rice, all of Port Worth, for appellee.

LATTIMORE, Justice.

Appellant filed this suit, in the court below No. 4091A, to enjoin the execution of a judgment, for debt and foreclosure in cause numbered below in the same court No. S6066. The pleading and judgment in No. 86066 was not introduced in evidence.

This is an application to this court for a writ of certiorari to the clerk of the district court of Tarrant county to direct said clerk to perfect the transcript in this appeal by certifying to us the judgment and pleadings in No. 86066, appellant’s proposition being that it was not necessary to introduce in evidence said judgment and pleadings because the court below had judicial knowledge of same. Assuming the premises of such proposition to be true, still that of which a court takes judicial knowledge is a fact. State v. Savage, 105 Tex. 467, 151 S. W. 530.

If such records in the custody of the clerk are properly a part of the record of this appeal, same should appear in the statement of facts which is to be prepared in the statutory manner. That manner does not provide for same to be presented to us on certificate of the clerk of the court in which such evidence was-filed.

The motion is overruled.
#### KEY v. STATE.

No. 16400.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1934.

R. H. Ratliff, of Colorado, Tex., for appellant

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

KRUEGER,' Judge.

The offense is possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or.has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6612
RUSSELL JAMES CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; JACK CRAGWAY, Administrative Remedy Procedure Coordinator; ASRESAHEGN GETACHEW, MD; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE; UNNAMED STAFF, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6635
RUSSELL JAMES CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner, Division of Correction; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden Doc, Maryland Pre-Release System; ASRESAHEGNGETACHEW, MD, M.D., Medical Director, Correctional Medical Services, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-3283-H, CA-96-688-H)3 Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell James Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Wendy A. Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Virginia Adams Stuelpnagel, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) civil complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Campbell v. Lanham , Nos. CA-95-3283-H; CA-96-688-H (D. Md. Apr. 3 & 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.4 AFFIRMED
### NEMA-DOE Meeting on Lamp Codes & 

### Standards Issues Date: January 21, 2003 Time: 10:00 AM

- 12:00 PM Place: NEMA, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA Expected Participants: Michael McCabe Ronald Lewis Brian Card BryanBerringer Edward Levy HamptonNewsome DOE DOE DOE DOE Navigant Cons. FTC Joe Howley Peter Bleasby Al Rousseau Mark Sharp Mark Sugaya Dale Work Ed Yandek Craig Updyke
I. Welcome and Introductions

- Joe Howley or Peter Bleasby II. FollowUp from November 21 Meeting Reflector (ERlBR) Lamps

- NEMA Shipment Data HID Lamps

- NEMA ShipmentData III. NEMA CFL Efficiency Rulemaking Petition Ed Levy

- Discussion onthe Petitioning Process NEMA StrawmanDraft--:- Discussion IV. Other Items GE Lighting OSRAM Sylvania Philips Lighting Panasonic Panasonic Philips GE Lighting NEMA
#### DAWSON v. HEID BROS.

No. 3370.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

April 23, 1936.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1936.

William E. Clayton, of El Paso, for appellant.

C. W. Croom, of El Paso, for appellee.

WALTHALL, Justice.

This is an attempted appeal from an. interlocutory order of the county court at law of El Paso county appointing a receiver. In the absence of a statute authorizing the same, an appeal will not lie from an interlocutory order. Article 2250, *202R.S., authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court appointing a receiver. By its terms the right of appeal is limited to such orders of the district court. Accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed. Muela v. Moye (Tex.Civ.App.) 185 S.W. 331.

It is so ordered.
# C_2022106EN.01001201.xml

| 4.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/12

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2022/C 106/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 21.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.61753 |
| Member State | Austria |
| Region | Austria |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biosiegel und das AMA-Gütesiegel (N589/2008, SA.36782(2013/N) und SA.37715(2013/N). |
| Legal basis | AMA-Gesetz 1992 (BGBl. Nr. 376/1992); § 21a AMA-Gesetz 1992 in Verbindung mit der AMB-Verordnung 2015 (www.ama.at) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Aid for promotion measures in favour of agricultural products |
| Form of aid | Subsidised services, Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 68 530 000 EUR
  Annual budget: 0 EUR |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2027 |
| Economic sectors | AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Agrarmarkt Austria |
| Dresdner Straße 70, 1200 Wien |

Date of adoption of the decision

21.1.2022

Aid number

SA.61753

Member State

Austria

Region

Austria

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biosiegel und das AMA-Gütesiegel (N589/2008, SA.36782(2013/N) und SA.37715(2013/N).

Legal basis

AMA-Gesetz 1992 (BGBl. Nr. 376/1992); § 21a AMA-Gesetz 1992 in Verbindung mit der AMB-Verordnung 2015 (www.ama.at)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Aid for promotion measures in favour of agricultural products

Form of aid

Subsidised services, Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 68 530 000 EUR

Annual budget: 0 EUR

Intensity

100 %

Duration

Until 31.12.2027

Economic sectors

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING

Name and address of the granting authority

Agrarmarkt Austria

Dresdner Straße 70, 1200 Wien

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2757 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2757

To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the regular budget 
          of the United Nations or any United Nations agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2015

  Mr. Babin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the regular budget 
          of the United Nations or any United Nations agency.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
              UNITED NATIONS AND UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--No funds made available to any Federal department 
or agency may be used to make United States voluntary contributions to 
the regular budget of the United Nations or any United Nations agency.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) applies with respect to funds 
made available for fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal years.
                                 <all>
```