alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1191 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

28) IV-E-01 

Docket Number: 

A-90-27 

Printed 5/13/2008 7:58:47 AM Sheet 28 of 51 
P.2 

A-9o-27 

y*° sr<r« 

% y 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

\»nv 1991 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

November 4, 1991 Teleconference with Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) representatives and legal 

counsel representing the Minnesota Mining and 

Manufacturing Company ("3M") and the Alliance for 

Responsible CFC Policy ("the Alliance") 

D. Kent Berry »«f) /< fe-^p 

Deputy Director, Air Quality MOTiagement Division 

(MD-15) " 

Docket No. A-90-27 

On November 4, 1991, U.S. EPA officials had a teleconference 

with attorneys from Gardner, Carton & Douglas, representing 3M 

and the Alliance, to discuss their clients' concerns about the 

timing of EPA's final action on the rulemaking proposal published 

in the Federal Register on March 18, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 11387) 

and proposing to exempt certain compounds from regulation as 

volatile organic compounds (VOC's) due to their negligible 

reactivity. The following individuals participated in the 

teleconference: 

Kent Berry, EPA 

Rich Ossias, EPA 

Vickie Patton, EPA 

Matthew Plache, Gardner, Carton & Douglas for 3M 

and the Alliance 

Peter Wyckoff, Gardner, Carton & Douglas for 3M 

and the Alliance 

Summary of Discussion 

At the outset of the teleconference EPA officials indicated 

that EPA would document the teleconference for placement in the 

rulemaking docket. 

\ & 

\ , 
FV3_ 

r ' ~'" " "' 

Generally, legal counsel for 3M and the Alliance conveyed 

their concern about the timing of EPA's final action on the 

proposed rule referenced above. They indicated that 3M has 

encountered difficulty in marketing some of the compounds 

identified in EPA's proposal (i.e., the perfluorocarbons) as 

chlorofluorocarbons substitutes because EPA has not yet taken 

final action on the proposed rule. They requested that EPA 

endeavor to ensure completion of the final rule as expeditiously 

as possible. EPA explained the anticipated schedule for 

finalizing the proposal, indicating that an abbreviated internal 

agency review of the draft final rule would begin next week and 

that EPA expects to submit the draft final rule for interagency 

review in early December. Legal counsel for 3M and the Alliance 

indicated that they would write or otherwise contact certain 

officials who may be able to facilitate the finalization of the 

proposed rule. 

cc: Vickie Patton, EPA, OGC (LE-132A) 

1 The substantive content of the draft final rule was not 

discussed.
# C_2023014EN.01000301.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10892 – APOLLO / HINES / VI-BA / AEDES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 14/02)

On 16 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 32022M10892. 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 32022M10892. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
1 The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2059

___________ Craig E. Dudley; Bryant Ewell; * Tolbert Pratt; Gene E. Dudley, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Hammond Sheet Metal Company, * doing business as Hammond * [UNPUBLISHED] Distributing Company, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 2001 Filed: April 23, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Inthis action alleging discrimination and state law claims, Hammond Sheet Metal Company moved to compel the enforcement of a settlement agreement that it allegedit had reached with appellants. The district court 1 held an evidentiary hearing.consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- After listening to extensive testimony from Hammond’s attorney, the sole witness, and receiving into the record documentary evidence submitted by both sides, the court concludedthat a settlement agreement existed and that appellants failed to disprove their attorney’s authority to settle on their behalf. This appeal followed, and we affirm. Upon a thorough review of the record before us, including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held below, we cannot say that the court clearly erred in finding that a valid settlement agreement existed and that appellants had authorized their attorney to settle according to the terms of the orally reached settlement agreement at issue. See Mueller v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. , 143 F.3d 414, 416 (8th Cir. 1998) (district court’s finding that plaintiff had given his attorney express authority to settle case was not clearly erroneous in light of court’s credibility determinations, evidence supporting its findings, and reasonable inferences drawn from evidence); Turner v. Burlington N. R.R. Co. , 771 F.2d 341, 345-46 (8th Cir. 1985) (“Once it is shown that an attorney has entered into an agreement to settle a case, a party who denies that the attorney was authorized to enter into the settlement has the burden to prove that authorization was not given.”); Worthy v. McKesson Corp. , 756 F.2d 1370, 1371-73 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (fact that parties left some details for counsel to work out during later negotiations cannot be used to abrogate otherwise valid settlement agreement, which was reached orally prior to preparation of formal settlement documents). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2023336EN.01000101.xml

| 22.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/1

---

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

SA.108573

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 336/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 7.9.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.108573 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Aid to undertakings performing own-account road haulage transport of goods |
| Legal basis | — | Article 14 Decree Law No. 144 of September 23, 2022, converted with amendments by Law No. 175 of November 17 2022, and amended by Article 34 paragraph 1 of Decree Law No. 48 of May 4, 2023‘Additional urgent measures on national energy policy, business productivity, social policies and for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRP)’, — Draft Interministerial Decree, as provided for in Article 14(2) of the Decree-Law 144/2022, stipulating the criteria for the implementation of the measure. |

Date of adoption of the decision

7.9.2023

Aid number

SA.108573

Member State

Italy

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Aid to undertakings performing own-account road haulage transport of goods

Legal basis

—

Article 14 Decree Law No. 144 of September 23, 2022, converted with amendments by Law No. 175 of November 17 2022, and amended by Article 34 paragraph 1 of Decree Law No. 48 of May 4, 2023‘Additional urgent measures on national energy policy, business productivity, social policies and for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRP)’, — Draft Interministerial Decree, as provided for in Article 14(2) of the Decree-Law 144/2022, stipulating the criteria for the implementation of the measure.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Tax allowance

Budget

Overall budget: 85 000 000 EUR

Annual budget: 85 000 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Freight transport by road

Name and address of the granting authority

| MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORT |
| --- |
| PIAZZALE DI PORTA PIA, 1 — ROMA (ITALY) |

MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORT

PIAZZALE DI PORTA PIA, 1 — ROMA (ITALY)

Other information

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

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                                 ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
                                                 ID: 13-3532643
                                                 6700 West Loop South, 4th Floor
                                                 Bellaire, Texas  77401

NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTIONS
AND OPTION AGREEMENT

____________________________                   OPTION NUMBER:        __________
____________________________                   PLAN:                 __________
____________________________                   ID:                   __________

Effective _________, you have been granted a(n) Non-Qualified Stock Option to
buy ______ shares of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) stock at
$________ per share.

The total option price of the shares granted is $_________.

Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown.

     Shares               Vest Type              Full Vest          Expiration

           [ One third of granted shares vest on first,     [ Expire 10 years
             second and third anniversary of Grant Date. ]    from Grant Date. ]

By your signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree
that these options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of
the Company's Stock Option Plan as amended and the Option Agreement, all of
which are attached and made a part of this document. Also attached hereto is an
Information Memorandum about the Company's Prospectus covering the Plan.

These options are considered to be non-qualified stock options under Section 422
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This letter shall constitute a grant of
non-qualified stock options and an Incentive Agreement under the Plan.

This grant and Incentive Agreement are also subject to the further condition
that YOU RETURN TO US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER A
SIGNED COPY OF THIS LETTER to indicate your receipt of the above referenced
documents. Please retain this original letter as your documentation of this
stock option grant and Incentive Agreement.

                                               _________________________________
Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.                  Date

_____________________________________          _________________________________
_____________                                  Date


                                                                Date: __________
Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We have issued our report dated February 12, 1999, accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements  and  schedules  incorporated  by  reference in the Annual
Report of Oriole Homes Corp. On Form 10-K for the years ended  December 31, 1998
and 1997. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference of said report in
the  Registration  Statement  of  Oriole  Homes  Corp.  On Form  S-8  (File  No.
333-27321).



GRANT THORNTON LLP

Miami, Florida
February 12, 1999
OKLAHOMA AERONAUTICS COMMISSION

December 4, 2015

Mr. Byron K. Huffman

Acting Director

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Oklahoma’s Compliance with the Amended Policy & Procedures 

Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue

Dear Mr. Huffman:

Yesterday, I visited with Jim Brown in your office concerning the above. My 

phone call was prompted by your letter of 11/24/15 to Governor Mary Fallin

regarding this issue. After discussing with him Oklahoma’s statutory scheme 

concerning aviation fuel taxes, he was of the opinion (as was Randall Fiertz, 

who I talked to probably over a year ago regarding this) that Oklahoma was in 

compliance with the policy on airport revenue as amended. He advised that I 

should, however, compose a letter to you addressing this issue of our 

compliance with this policy.

The Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission (OAC) is a non-appropriated state 

agency funded by taxes and fees from users of the Oklahoma Airport System 

(aircraft excise taxes, aircraft registration fees and an aviation fuel tax of 

8/100ths of 1 cent per gallon, $0.0008/gallon). The proceeds of the aviation 

fuel tax are directed to the OAC by Title 68, Section 500.6a(3), of the Oklahoma 

Statutes (O.S.). By mandate in the enabling legislation establishing the OAC, 

Title 3, O.S., Section 81 et seq., the apportioned revenues, among which are 

the proceeds of the aviation fuel tax, received by the OAC, may only be spent 

on state aviation programs and airports. More specifically, such revenues may 

only be spent “to encourage, foster, and assist in the development of 

aeronautics in this state and to encourage the establishment of airports and air 

navigation facilities.” Title 3, O.S., Section 85(A). 
Should your Office need the above referenced statutes or any additional 

information, please contact me at the email address or phone number that I 

have provided to Jim Brown. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Victor N. Bird

Director

Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission

xc:

The Honorable Mary Fallin

Governor of Oklahoma

Mr. Gary Ridley

Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation

Mr. Glenn Boles

Manager, FAA AR/OK Airports Development Office
Order entered June 2 1 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01323
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01349
- CR
ERIC JERMOND DAVIS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 71411
- W , F11
- 59063
- W



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeals. On June 18, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed in these appeals. We ADOPT the findings th at: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeals; (2) appellant is indigent; (3) the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent appellant; (4) the Public Defender’s Office did not get notice of the appointment, nor did it receive cor respondence from this Court regarding the appeals; and (5) Katherine Drew asked for thirty days to file appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief in these appeals by FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2013

.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, Katherine

Drew, Appellate

- Chief, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office, and Michael Casillas, Appellate

- Chief, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50948

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ALONSO CANTU-ROSAS, also known as Jesus Villa-Mireles,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-967-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Alonso Cantu-Rosas appeals the consecutive 24-month sentence 

imposed upon revocation of his supervised release following his conviction and 

82-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. CantuRosas argues that the district court committed significant procedural error by 

failing to recognize its authority to order that his revocation sentence run 

partially concurrent with the 82-month drug sentence.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50948 Document: 00512753079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2014
No. 13-50948

Cantu-Rosas challenges the district court’s incorrect statement 

regarding its authority to impose a partially concurrent sentence for the first 

time on appeal. Accordingly, we review for plain error only. See United States 

v. Kirklin, 701 F.3d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir. 2012). The Government concedes 

that the district court committed a clear and obvious error by stating that it 

was statutorily barred from imposing a partially concurrent revocation 

sentence. See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91-93 (5th Cir. 1994); 18 

U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c).

However, Cantu-Rosas cannot show that his substantial rights were 

affected because he does not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he 

would have received a lesser sentence but for the error. See United States v. 

Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010). Nor does he demonstrate that we 

should exercise discretion to remand because the error seriously affected the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings. See Kirklin, 

701 F.3d at 180; United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 

2008). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50948 Document: 00512753079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2014
Exhibit 32

    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 Annual Report of GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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


Date: March 11, 2005                                    /s/
                                                        Ronald A. Duncan
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                                        GCI, Inc.

                                       1
<PAGE>
    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 Annual Report of GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Lowber, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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; and

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


Date: March 11, 2005                                    /s/
                                                        John M. Lowber
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        GCI, Inc.

                                       2
# C_2023231EN.01001501.xml

| 30.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/15

---

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

SA.107506

(2023/C 231/14)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.6.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.107506 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | Poland |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Wypłata rekompensat z Funduszu Ochrony Rolnictwa z tytułu braku zapłaty za sprzedane produkty rolne podmiotowi skupującemu, który stał się niewypłacalny. |
| Legal basis | projekt ustawy o Funduszu Ochrony Rolnictwa |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Other |
| Budget | Overall budget: 50 000 000 PLN |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | dyrektor oddziału terenowego Krajowego Ośrodka Wsparcia Rolnictwa |
| 01-207 Warszawa ul. Karolkowa 30 |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.6.2023

Aid number

SA.107506

Member State

Poland

Region

Poland

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Wypłata rekompensat z Funduszu Ochrony Rolnictwa z tytułu braku zapłaty za sprzedane produkty rolne podmiotowi skupującemu, który stał się niewypłacalny.

Legal basis

projekt ustawy o Funduszu Ochrony Rolnictwa

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Other

Budget

Overall budget: 50 000 000 PLN

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority

dyrektor oddziału terenowego Krajowego Ośrodka Wsparcia Rolnictwa

01-207 Warszawa ul. Karolkowa 30

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

---