alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023242EN.01000301.xml

| 7.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/3

---

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.106009

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 242/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.6.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.106009 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Esonero contributivo per i giovani under 36 |
| Legal basis | Esonero contributivo per assunzione giovani |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Reduction of social security contributions |
| Budget | Overall budget: 422 350 000 EUR
  Annual budget: 139 100 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | INPS (Giuseppe Coppola) |
| Via Ciro il Grande 21 00144 Roma |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.6.2023

Aid number

SA.106009

Member State

Italy

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Esonero contributivo per i giovani under 36

Legal basis

Esonero contributivo per assunzione giovani

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Reduction of social security contributions

Budget

Overall budget: 422 350 000 EUR

Annual budget: 139 100 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Name and address of the granting authority

INPS (Giuseppe Coppola)

Via Ciro il Grande 21 00144 Roma

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. 3116 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3116

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2015

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend by 15 years the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to 
            conduct the quarterly financial report program.

    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 ``Quarterly Financial Report 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO CONDUCT 
              QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM.

    Section 4(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to amend title 13, United 
States Code, to transfer responsibility for the quarterly financial 
report from the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, 
and for other purposes'', approved January 12, 1983 (Public Law 97-454; 
13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
``2030''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### 1 MEMORANDUM From: The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To: Combustion Turbine NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0490) Date: June, 2012 Subject: Communications with Outside Entities

Communications with Outside Entities The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had communications with both the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and with URS Corporation (on behalf of Air Products) during the development of the reconsideration proposal.
Exhibit 1.3

Section 302 Certification

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Herbert E. Jones, Jr., Chairman of the Board, certify that;

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Pittsburgh & West
   Virginia Railroad;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
   the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
   registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others
      within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
      report is being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
      Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
   committee of registrant's Board of Trustees:

   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
   report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or
   in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
   subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
   corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
   weaknesses.

Date: March 29, 2007	/s/ Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
			Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
			Chairman of the Board
# C_2022435EN.01000301.xml

| 16.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 435/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 435/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10873 – SANLAM / ALLIANZ / SANLAM ALLIANZ AFRICA JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 435/03)

On 19 October 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 32022M10873. 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 32022M10873. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 8, 2021

NO. 03-19-00040-CR

Chad Allen Kelley, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES TRIANA, KELLY, AND SMITH

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the 

court’s judgment adjudicating guilt requiring reversal. However, there was error in the judgment 

adjudicating guilt that requires correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s written 

judgment adjudicating guilt as follows: to delete the order of $180 restitution to the Texas 

Department of Public Safety and to reflect that the “Time Credited” is “FROM 01/09/15 TO

04/09/15 02/04/16 TO 07/19/16 02/07/18 TO 12/20/18.” The judgment adjudicating guilt, as

modified, is affirmed. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.
Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-41204 on Form S-8, as amended by Amendment No. 1 (Form S-8 No. 333-04888) and in Registration Statement Nos. 333-14925, 333-43018, 333-109322, 333-109327, 333-200146 and 333-206518 on Forms S-8 and No. 333-198503 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 25, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Brown & Brown, Inc. and subsidiaries (“Brown & Brown”), and the effectiveness of Brown & Brown’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brown & Brown for the year ended December 31, 2015.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Miami, Florida


February 25, 2016
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1
 700 LOUISIANA STREET 
SUITE 4300
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
    
    FAX: 713 225-6475TELEPHONE: 713 570-3200
 
  Pioneer Sets Date for Special Stockholders Meeting
    Additional Information




---



##### 



Contact:
    
    Gary Pittman(713) 570-3200
 -2-
# C_2022278EN.01000201.xml

| 20.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10764 – SAGARD / BPIFRANCE / ADIT JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 278/02)

On 11 July 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 French 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 32022M10764. 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 32022M10764. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
* 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

August 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10143

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN VILLANUEVA PRONES, also known 

as Gustavo Aguirre,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-37-ALL

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Villanueva Prones appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the

district court’s enhancement of his sentence under United States

Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) violated United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). He also argues that considering his

prior state conviction as an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G. §
2

2L1.2(b)(1)(C) was an erroneous application of the federal

sentencing guidelines. 

We review Prones’s first issue de novo. See United States v.

Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285 (5th Cir. 2005). The government

concedes that Prones preserved a Booker error but argues that

because the district court expressly refused to run the appellant’s

24-month guidelines sentence concurrently with his state court

sentence, there could not have been harmful error. Under the

circumstances of this case, the district court’s conscious decision

not to award a concurrent sentence persuades us that any Booker

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2005). 

We review Prones’s second issue for plain error. United

States v. Garcia-Cantu, 302 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2002).

Prones concedes that his second argument is foreclosed by circuit

precedent, and he raises it to preserve it for possible further

review by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court. The argument

is foreclosed. A state felony conviction for simple possession of

a controlled substance is an aggravated felony for U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2

purposes, even though such a conviction is a misdemeanor under

federal law. See Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d at 693-94. Jerome v.

United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943), does not affect this court’s

binding precedent. Accordingly, Prones’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1258

___________________________

Phelipe A. Linstrom

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Quiktrip Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: August 30, 2021

Filed: September 2, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Phelipe Linstrom appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his motion

for a new jury trial in his civil action. He argues that the district court abused its

1The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
discretion in sustaining Quiktrip Corporation’s objections to portions of the

deposition testimony of Linstrom’s expert witnesses and not allowing those portions

to be read to the jury. After careful review, we conclude that the ruling was proper

for the reasons stated by the district court, and the district court therefore did not

abuse its discretion. See McPheeters v. Black & Veatch Corp., 427 F.3d 1095, 1101

(8th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e accord the district court wide discretion in admitting and

excluding evidence, and its decision will not be disturbed unless there is a clear and

prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)). Morever, Linstrom has not

shown that the district court’s ruling substantially influenced the jury’s verdict. See

id. (“We will not reverse a judgment on the basis of erroneous evidentiary rulings

absent a showing that those rulings had a substantial influence on the jury’s

verdict.”). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
CASH FLOWS, CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,205,343
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,470
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         285,498
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        15,704
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  45,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,557,627
<COMMON>                                       165,307
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            409,662
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 574,969
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           462,400
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 700
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 519,558
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,557,627
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,099,484
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            46,612
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     936,905
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     983,517
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        115,967
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,420
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 118,387
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        33,289
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,098
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   85,098
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        53,854
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       31,094
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         146,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.

2002 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




     The ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
“Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:



1. Section 1.2(u) of the Plan is amended and restated as follows:





	 	 	 	"(u)   “Offering Period” shall have the following meaning:






	 	(i)	 	During the period commencing
on or after the date of adoption of the Plan and
ending on October 1, 2004, “Offering Period”
means each six-month period commencing on any
April 1 and October 1; provided, however, that,
on a one-time basis, the Offering Period
commencing October 1, 2004 shall end on April 30,
2005.
	 
	 	(ii)	 	After April 30, 2005,
“Offering Period” means each six-month period
commencing on any May 1 and November 1.






	 	 	 	Options shall be granted on the Date of Grant and exercised
on the Date of Exercise, as provided in Section 3.1(a) and
3.2(a), respectively.”





2. This First Amendment shall be effective as of August 15, 2004.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. hereby executes this
First Amendment to the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan on this 12th day of October, 2004.



ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.




	 	 	 
	BY:	 	
/s/ AIMEE S. WEISNER



Aimee S. Weisner

Corporate Vice President, General

  Counsel and Secretary
#### GULF PIPE LINE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mrs. Jeanette MANN et al., Defendants in Error.

No. 7374.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

April 17, 1940.

C. T. Duff and Duff & Cecil, all of Beaumont, John E. Green, Jr., and John P. Bullington, both of Houston, Peveril O. Settle and William L. Wise, both of Ft. Worth, and B. C. Clark, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.

E. B. Votaw, of Beaumont, for defendants in error Mann and others.

Howth, Adams & Hart, of Beaumont, for •defendants in error Fall and others.

Robert L. Sonfield, of Houston, for in-■terveners.

SLATTON, Commissioner.

This cause has been decided with the ■cause of the Gulf Pipe Line Company, plaintiff in error, v. W. S. Nearen et al., 138 S.W.2d 1065, defendants in error, and for the reason therein stated the judgment ■entered by the trial court and affirmed by *the Court of Civil Appeals, which allowed the defendants in error a recovery for the purchase price of the oil, is affirmed, and tthat part, of the judgment of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals allowing judgment for interest is here reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.