alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amu: OF C 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-12042411 

Decided by Board January 03,1962 

Visa petition—Revocation-8 CFR 206—Appeal must be made by petitioner. 

Right to appeal from revocation or previously approved visa petition lies 

solely with petitioner. Attorney who once represented petitioner and cannot now locate her and who continues to represent beneficiary has no standing under 8 CFR 206.3 to assert an appeal. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: An order entered in this case on September 20, 

1961, revoked a visa petition approved for classification of the beneficiary as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a) (27) (A). Notice of the revocation was served on the petitioner and the attorney of record on September 27, 1961, by certified 

mail. A notice of appeal executed by the attorney of record was 

received by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on October 12, 1961. 

The attorney of record appeared before this Board in oral argument on November 8, 1961. He stated, in substance, that he once 

represented the petitioner; that he has been unable to locate her in 

connection with the revocation of her petition; and that he intends 

to continue to represent the beneficiary. 

8 CFR 206.3 provides, in part: "If upon reconsideration the approval previously granted is revoked, the petitioner shall be informed of the decision with the reasons therefor and shall have 15 

days after the mailing of the notification of decision within which 

to appeal as provided in Part 3 of this chapter .. ." (Emphasis 

supplied. ) 

It is clear from the statements of counsel that the appeal before 

ns was not intiated by the petitioner as provided in 8 CFR 206.3 

(supra). Under the circumstances, this Board will not consider it 

on the merits. Since the appeal is not properly before us, we will 

dismiss for failure to comply with 8 CFR 206.3. 

ORDER: It is directed that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

clisiniseci in uecordance with the foregoing opinion. 

547
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TIB FINANCIAL CORP. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      14,903,424
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          31,154
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,426,308
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      48,155,573
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        49,237,944
<LOANS>                                    217,285,440
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,410,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             319,783,766
<DEPOSITS>                                 283,795,157
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,104,869
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,088,598
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       444,215
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,350,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             319,783,766
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             13,629,511
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,191,961
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               658,413
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            17,479,885
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,226,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,292,019
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,187,866
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  270,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               3,870
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             10,897,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,969,268
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,564,768
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,564,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.91
<LOANS-NON>                                    381,548
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,201,974
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   66,650
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,511
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,410,835
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,410,835
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022100EN.01000201.xml

| 1.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10601 – WARBURG PINCUS / OXFORD PROPERTIES / HALE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 100/02)

On 21 February 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 32022M10601. 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 32022M10601. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
<PAGE>   1



                                                               EXHIBIT 11.1


               STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (1)
                (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED        NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 ---------------------     ---------------------
                                                                 JUNE 29,     JUNE 30,     JUNE 29,     JUNE 30,
                                                                   1997         1996         1997         1996
                                                                   ----         ----         ----         ----

<S>                                                             <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>     
Net income(1).................................................  $   2,571    $   1,884    $   7,168     $  5,088
                                                                =========    =========    =========     ========
  Average shares outstanding..................................      8,900        6,795        8,900        6,795
  Common equivalent shares....................................        107                       125          126
  Assumed shares sold to prepay shareholder distribution (2)..                     890                       890
                                                                ---------    ---------    ---------     --------
  Weighted average number of common shares....................      9,007        7,685        9,025        7,685
                                                                =========    =========    =========     ========
  Earnings per common and common equivalent share.............  $    0.29    $    0.25    $    0.79     $   0.66
                                                                =========    =========    =========     ========

</TABLE>

(1)      The computations set forth for the three and nine fiscal months ended
         June 30, 1996 are based on pro forma net income which reflects the
         recording by the Company of additional taxes as if the Company were
         treated as a C corporation for all periods presented.

(2)      Reflects the estimated number of shares required to be sold by the
         Company (as calculated based upon the net proceeds of the initial
         public offering) to pay the pre-offering shareholder distributions of
         approximately $9,952. The total estimated shares of 890 were assumed to
         be outstanding for both periods of fiscal 1996. Subsequent to the
         initial public offering, the shares were actually outstanding and are
         therefore included in the "average shares outstanding" calculation
         above.
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 3, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00739

- CR

Jose Guadalupe MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- 1132

- DR

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, C hief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his motion for rehearing is granted

. We order the motion for rehearing due December 19, 2014.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                                       TO
                           CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
                                       OF
                               LOYALTYPOINT, INC.

LoyaltyPoint, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

FIRST: The name of the corporation is LoyaltyPoint, Inc.

SECOND: A Certificate of Designation (the "Certificate") was filed with the
Secretary of State of Delaware on August 11, 2004, and the Certificate requires
correction as permitted by Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware because the Certificate inadvertently referenced 40% instead
of 20% of the shares of Series B Preferred Stock being outstanding as a
prerequisite to electing one, instead of two, members of the board of directors
of the Company, and further omitted the word "designate" in Section 7(b). In
addition, the date of a referenced agreement was incorrect.

THIRD: Section 5.4 of the Certificate is corrected to read as follows:

         5.4 Board of Directors Election. So long as at least 20% of the shares
         of Series B Preferred Stock initially issued are outstanding, the
         holders of the Series B Preferred Stock, voting as a separate class,
         shall be entitled to elect two (2) directors of the Corporation. The
         holders of Common Stock and Series B Preferred Stock, voting together
         as a single class, shall be entitled to elect the remaining directors
         of the Corporation, subject to the rights of any other holders of
         Preferred Stock.

FOURTH: Sections 7(b) and (d) of the Certificate are corrected to read as
        follows:

         (b) authorize, designate or issue (by reclassification or otherwise)
         any security having rights or preferences senior to or being on a
         parity with the Series B Preferred Stock;

         (d) issue any shares of Series B Preferred Stock other than pursuant to
         that certain Series B Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrants
         Purchase Agreement dated August 12, 2004, by and between the
         Corporation and the investors named therein, as such agreement may be
         duly amended;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LoyaltyPoint, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed
by Paul Robinson, its Chief Executive Officer, this 12th day of August, 2004.



                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Paul Robinson, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6361

THOMAS L. LEWIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; CARL

STOCK; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED;

ESSA ABDULLA; STEVE PERRY; EDGAR BOWDISH;

BETTY CRAZE; STEPHEN BLACKE; TERESA WAID;

GEORGE TRENT; NICHOLAS J. HUN; WILLIAM K.

DAVIS; OTHERS UNKNOWN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-1136-2)

Submitted: June 20, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas L. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Karen M.R. Weber, William J.

Powell, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Jeffrey Kent

Phillips, Jace Harrison Goins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West

Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Leslie K. Tyree, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Thomas L. Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Lewis v. Prison Health Servs., No. CA-97-1136-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 2,

1999). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel and to dismiss the appeal as untimely and dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. We deny as moot the motion of Appellees Wexford Health

Sources, Inc., and Essa Abdulla to extend the time in which to file

an informal brief.

AFFIRMED
# C_2022374EN.01000101.xml

| 30.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/1

---

Commission Notice amending the Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (Defence and Security Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 374/01)

On 8 May 2019, the Commission adopted the Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (1) (hereinafter ‘the Notice’). The Notice looks at the ways in which cooperative procurement can take place in accordance with Defence Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC (2) (hereinafter: ‘the Directive’).

In particular, the Notice provides for detailed guidance for the application of the exception under Article 13(c) of the Directive. In this context, the Notice specifies the details for the notification of a joint cooperative programme by the Member State(s) to the Commission.

The Notice currently foresees that the notification be sent to the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW). Following the reorganisation of responsibilities within the Commission services, and the transfer of the responsibility for the Directive to the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS), the contact details need to be updated.

Therefore, the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of point 3.7 of the Notice are replaced by the following:

‘Notifications can be sent either by post or by email to the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS). The email address for the notifications is: EC-DEFENCE-PROCUREMENT@ec.europa.eu

The postal address is:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS) |
| Defence and Security Procurement |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË’ |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS)

Defence and Security Procurement

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË’

---

(1)  Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (Defence and Security Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC) (OJ C 157, 8.5.2019, p. 1).

1

(2)  Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76).

2

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2371** 

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted : March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order dire cting the district court to reop en his civil case, grant him in forma pauperis status , and adjudicate his civil complaint. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus
relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U .S. Dist. Court , 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509,
516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a cle ar right to the relief sought.
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988)

. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Smith is not available by wa y of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Smith’s motion for an en banc determination and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2022115EN.01000401.xml

| 11.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10609 – EURAZEO / PSPIB / FST HOTELS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 115/04)

On 25 February 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 32022M10609. 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 32022M10609. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


      PEM International, Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, is 100% owned by the Registrant.

      PEM Management, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, is 100% owned by the Registrant.

      PEM Investments, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, is 100% owned by the Registrant.

      PEM World Sales, Ltd., incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, is 100%
owned by the Registrant.

      PEM International (Singapore) Pte Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware, is 100% owned by the Registrant.


<PAGE>