alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023171EN.01000101.xml

| 12.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/1

---

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.63846

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 171/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 10.8.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.63846 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Covid 19 — Damage compensation for Deutsche Bahn AG |
| Legal basis | Administrative decision by the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure |
| Type of measure | Ad Hoc Case
  Deutsche Bahn AG / DB Fernverkehr AG |
| Objective | Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences |
| Form of aid | Equity instruments |
| Budget | Overall budget: 550 000 000 EUR
  Annual budget: 0 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | |
| Economic sectors | Passenger rail transport, interurban |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure |
| Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin |

Date of adoption of the decision

10.8.2021

Aid number

SA.63846

Member State

Germany

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Covid 19 — Damage compensation for Deutsche Bahn AG

Legal basis

Administrative decision by the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure

Type of measure

Ad Hoc Case

Deutsche Bahn AG / DB Fernverkehr AG

Objective

Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences

Form of aid

Equity instruments

Budget

Overall budget: 550 000 000 EUR

Annual budget: 0 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Economic sectors

Passenger rail transport, interurban

Name and address of the granting authority

Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure

Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin

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

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, T. Michael Price, of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (“First Commonwealth”), certify that this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of First Commonwealth on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 , fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of First Commonwealth at the end of such period and the results of operations of First Commonwealth for such period.





DATED: August 13, 2013/s/ T. Michael PriceT. Michael PricePresident and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-60746

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JASON WILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:95-CR007-D)

December 26, 1996

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jason Wiley appeals his convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack

cocaine and aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute crack coca ine. Wiley

argues that the evidence was insufficient to support these convictions.1 United States v. Ruiz , 860 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir. 1988).

2 United States v. Laury

, 49 F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, --U.S.--, 116 S.Ct.

162, 133 L.Ed.2d 105 (1995). ; U nited States v. Shaw

, 920 F.2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 500 U.S. 926, 11 S.Ct. 2038, 114 L.Ed.2d 122 (1991).

3 United States v. Pierre

, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 506 U.S. 898,

113 S.Ct. 280, 121 L.Ed.2d 207 (1992) ( internal citations and quotations omitted ).

2 Wiley moved for a

judgment o f acquittal after the government rested its case but failed to

renew his motion after presenting his defense. Because he did not renew his mot ion for acquittal,

Wiley waived any objection to the district court’s denial of this motion. 1 In this procedural posture,

our review of Wiley’s insufficiency of the evidence claim is limit ed to determining whether a “manifest

miscarriage of justice” occurred. 2 A manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred only where “the

record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or

. . . because the evidence on a key element of the

offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking”. 3

We have carefully reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record in this case. We find no

manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

| 99.1   | Description |
|------------------|-------------|

----
<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>  0001058625
<NAME> INTERACTIVE PERFORMANCE OF FLORIDA 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>
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 222 SSM 31

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Eugene Francis,

 Appellant.

Submitted by Andrew W. Sayegh, for appellant.

Submitted by Laurie Sapakoff, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. 

Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case when it corrected an

error in a decision issued one day prior based on an objective

fact and thereby reinstated certain counts of defendant's

- 1 -
- 2 - SSM 31

indictment. Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the

judgment entered upon defendant's guilty plea. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order affirmed, in a memorandum. Judges Pigott, Rivera,

Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur. Chief Judge

DiFiore took no part.

Decided November 17, 2016

- 2 -
Exhibit 10.6: Engagement Letter - John Omielan (1/4/2008).







Exhibit 10.6 

John Omielan

3981-A Kingsway

Burnaby, B.C. V5H 1Y7

January 4, 2008 



InsightfulMind Learning, Inc.,

Although I have finished writing the SAT math course, there are still quite a few other tasks left to be done before a quality on-line SAT math course is available to be sold and used. The following is a list of some of the things that I can do to help, in decreasing priority order. Also, following each task is a very rough estimate of the number of hours that I think that the task will take. In addition, note that I am willing to have the work paid for with shares (at CDN $0.10 per share) instead of cash. However, since I do have other tasks to do, it will take a while before I am able to do some of the tasks listed below, especially the lower priority ones.

1. Create new quiz questions (21 for lesson #1 and 5 per technique for the rest of the lessons): 80 hours 

2. Since most of the techniques were originally created for use with quite challenging math contests, some of them should be modified (mostly in terms of being simplified) to make them more appropriate for use with the SAT course: 25 hours

3. Proof read, and correct, all of the uploaded course lessons: 25 hours

4. Proof read, and correct, all of the other associated course material (e.g., the bibliography, the techniques guide, etc.): 40 hours 

5. Provide any PHP programming and technical support for the Web site backend: Unknown hours, or even if it will be required 

6. For a few of the more complex techniques, provide additional examples: ~10 hours 

7. For a few of the more simple techniques, change one of the quiz questions from requesting the user to solve the given problem to that of determining which techniques are being used or not used, similar to what was done for many of the quiz questions for the Math League and AMC 12 courses: ~10 hours.

- John Omielan

ACCEPTED by the Board of Directors of InsightfulMind Learning, Inc., January 4, 2008:

Handwritten note - Subject to the corporation terminating the engagement at their discretion.

Initialed RK, JT, DJH and KB.

	
By:  JEFF THACHUK

       Jeff Thachuk 

 

By:  KEN BOGAS

       Ken Bogas

	
By:  RAVEN KOPELMAN

       Raven Kopelman 

 

By:  DAVE HOLMES

       Dave Holmes
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BE
REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000077242
<NAME> PG ENERGY INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  239,422,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  4,894,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      75,065,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    35,198,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             354,579,000
<COMMON>                                    33,142,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   32,677,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         30,186,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              96,005,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          739,000
<PREFERRED>                                 18,851,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        55,000,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                          10,000,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               70,121,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      115,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             103,748,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              354,579,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  160,594,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         6,364,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 137,514,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 143,878,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     16,716,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             143,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              16,859,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     7,343,000
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,153,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  1,730,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                7,423,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    33,768,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                    (49,653,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>




                                                                   Exhibit 27


<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                               14312000
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         4287000
<ALLOWANCES>                            65000
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     18991000
<PP&E>                              998182000
<DEPRECIATION>                       30148000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1053671000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               234178000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               383000
<OTHER-SE>                          491680000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        492063000
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     61855000
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        50178000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    7119000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       5062000
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   5062000
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          5062000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .14



        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                  PECO ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                     ($000)



                                                          12 Months
                                                            Ended
                                                         12/31/1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCOME                                               $  532,378
ADD BACK:
   INCOME TAXES:
   OPERATING INCOME                                         348,497
   NON-OPERATING INCOME                                     (28,843)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
   NET TAXES                                             $  319,654
-------------------------------------------------------------------
  FIXED CHARGES:
   INTEREST APPLICABLE TO DEBT                           $  317,243
   ANNUAL RENTALS ESTIMATE                               $    8,973
-------------------------------------------------------------------
   TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                   $  326,216
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTED EARNINGS INCLUDING AFUDC                        $1,178,248
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                             3.61
===================================================================
  AFUDC                                                       3,522
===================================================================
ADJUSTED EARNINGS EXCLUDING AFUDC                        $1,174,726
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RATIO OF EARNINGS EXCLUDING AFUDC TO FIXED CHARGES             3.60
===================================================================
#### KING v. STATE.

No. 15625.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1932.

Harold H. Young; of Dallas, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol, punishment being a fine of $100.

The indictment is regular. ■ .No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. In that condition nothing is preesnt-ed for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Hyperion
Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2008,
I, Walter Reed, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, that:





1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2008,
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ending March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Hyperion Energy,
      Inc.Date:  May 14,
      2008
            By:
            /s/ Walter
      ReedName:  Walter
      ReedTitle:  Chief Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### RODRIGUEZ v. STATE.

No. 19811.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1938.

Robt. P. Brown and Glenn R. Lewis, both of San Angelo, for appellant.

*802O.. C. Fisher, Dist. Atty., of Los Angelo, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense ■ is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for seven years.-

The assault occurred on the 17th of April, Í937, in appellant’s beer tavern. The testimony on the part of the state was, in substance, as follows: Alfredo Martinez had gone into.the tavern apparently in an intoxicated condition. As he was standing near the bar one Es.trada, engaged in an argument with a woman. When he slapped the woman Martinez challenged, him “to pick on a.man instead of a woman.” Martinez and Estrada then exchanged several blows but were finally separated. Appellant was one of those who separated the parties and he ordered Martinez out of his place, telling him that he would sell him no more beer. At this time appellant had a knife open, and cursed and abused Martinez. Martinez failed to leave the tavern, and appellant came from behind the bar with the open knife in his hand. Without provocation, he began cutting and stabbing Martinez-with .the knife. Martinez was unarmed.- The wounds inflicted by appellant on the injured party were serious. -

It was the version of appellant and his witnesses that he acted in self-defense when he inflictéd the wounds on Martinez.

The first bill of exception relates to the refusal of the ctrnrt to permit appellant to introduce in evidence a pardon after it had been shown by the state that He had theretofore been convicted -of perjury. The bill discloses that the state proved that appellant had been pardoned and further that appellant’s proof that his rights of citizenship had been restored .was uncon-troverted. We think the bill fails to reflect reversible error.

Bills of exception Nos. 2 to 6, both inclusive, relate to alleged improper argument on the part of the district attorney. Said bills show that counsel for appellant failed to make open objection to the remarks of the district attorney at the time they were made. This being true, we are constrained to hold that the bills fail to present reversible error. Glasser v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 116, 233 S.W. 969, 972; Salinas v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 18 S.W.2d 663.

In his. motion for new trial appellant set up newly discovered evidence. We deem it unnecessary to set forth the testimony alleged to be newly discovered. Suffice it to say that we are of opinion that- no abuse of discretion on the part of the -trial judge is shown in overruling the motion.

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.