alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022269EN.01002801.xml

| 13.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/28

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9603 – SNCF MOBILITES / THIF)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 269/06)

On 28 March 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 32022M9603. 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 32022M9603. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 66**  **5 9** 

CHARLES RAY CARTER , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. HENRY MCMASTER; JOHN PATE, Warden , Respondents

– Appell ees .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 8 : 1 0

- c v - 00 5 2 5

- H M H )

Submitted : March 28, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, a nd DUNC AN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un published p er curiam opinion
. Charles Ray Carter , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles Ray Carter seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable o r wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debata ble, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifi cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion to place the case in abeyance 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 th e decisional process.
DISMISSE D
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2946 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the corporate income 

tax rate to 20 percent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2015 

Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the corporate income tax rate to 20 percent. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Incentivize Corporate 

5 America Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. 20-PERCENT CORPORATE TAX RATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 11 of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol9 lows: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2946 IH

1 ‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX.—The amount of the tax im2 posed by subsection (a) shall be 20 percent of taxable in3 come.’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (1) Paragraphs (2)(B) and (6)(A)(ii) of section 

6 860E(e) of such Code are each amended by striking 

7 ‘‘section 11(b)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 11(b)’’. 

8 (2)(A) Section 1445(e)(1) of such Code is 

9 amended— 

10 (i) by striking ‘‘35 percent’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘the rate of tax in effect for the taxable year 

12 under section 11(b)’’, and 

13 (ii) by striking ‘‘of the gain’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘multiplied by the gain’’. 

15 (B) Section 1445(e)(2) of such Code is amend16 ed by striking ‘‘35 percent of the amount’’ and in17 serting ‘‘the rate of tax in effect for the taxable year 

18 under section 11(b) multiplied by the amount’’. 

19 (C) Section 1445(e)(6) of such Code is amend20 ed— 

21 (i) by striking ‘‘35 percent’’ and inserting 

22 ‘‘the rate of tax in effect for the taxable year 

23 under section 11(b)’’, and 

24 (ii) by striking ‘‘of the amount’’ and in25 serting ‘‘multiplied by the amount’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2946 IH

1 (D) Section 1446(b)(2)(B) of such Code is 

2 amended by striking ‘‘section 11(b)(1)’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘section 11(b)’’. 

4 (3) Section 852(b)(1) of such Code is amended 

5 by striking the last sentence. 

6 (4) Section 7874(e)(1)(B) of such Code is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘section 11(b)(1)’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘section 11(b)’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise pro11 vided in this subsection, the amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning 

13 after December 31, 2015. 

14 (2) WITHHOLDING.—The amendments made by 

15 subsection (b)(2) shall apply to distributions made 

16 after December 31, 2015. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2022426EN.01004601.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 426/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 426/46

---

Notice issued by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2022/C 426/10)

In accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the Ministry of the Environment hereby gives notice that it has received an application for prior consent for a proposal to establish the Lazy I extraction site for the working of the natural gas deposit associated with the Důl Lazy coal seam (deposit registration number 070700). The application relates to a polygonal area of approximately 6,066913 km2. The area is situated within the cadastral area of the municipalities of Orlová, Lazy u Orlové and Karviná-Doly in the Moravia-Silesia Region (north-eastern Czech Republic).

With reference to the Directive mentioned in the title and to Section 24 of Act No 44/1988 on the protection and exploitation of mineral resources (the Mining Act), as amended, the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic invites legal or natural persons authorised to carry out mining activities (contracting entities) to submit a competing application for prior consent to establish an extraction site in the area delineated above.

The authority competent to take the decision is the Ministry of the Environment. The criteria, conditions and requirements laid down in Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 6(2) of the Directive are set out in full in Czech legislation in Act No 44/1988 on the protection and exploitation of mineral resources (the Mining Act), as amended.

Applications may be submitted during the 90 days following publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Ministry of the Environment at the following address:

| RNDr. Martin Holý |
| --- |
| ředitel odboru geologie |
| Ministerstvo životního prostředí |
| Vršovická 65 |
| 100 10 Praha 10 |
| CZECH REPUBLIC |

RNDr. Martin Holý

ředitel odboru geologie

Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Vršovická 65

100 10 Praha 10

CZECH REPUBLIC

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered. A decision on the applications will be taken no later than 12 months after this period has expired. Further information is available on request from the geology department of the Ministry via the email address martin.holy@mzp.cz.

---

ANNEX

Image 1

---
#### Ex parte BOWERS.

No. 18670.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

Jesse E. Martin and Arthur Lee Moore, both of Fort Worth, for relator.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus.

After the adjournment of this court in June, 1936, an application for habeas corpus was presented to the Honorable Presiding Judge of this court, who directed the filing of the petition and that it should be submitted when the court convened. The case was submitted on October 14, 1936.

Relator sets up that on the 13th of August, 1936, an “Affidavit for information” was filed in the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Tarrant county, Tex., charging that relator “Did then and there unlawfully keep and was interested in keeping premises for the purpose of being used as a place to bet, wager and gamble on dog races,”- and that upon the same day a warrant was issued, and that on the 15th of August, 1936, relator was arrested and placed in the custody of the sheriff of Tarrant county. No copy of any affidavit for information accompanies this petition, nor is there a copy of any warrant. The allegations in the petition for writ of habeas corpus are not evidence, although sworn to, and do not prove themselves. See authorities cited by Mr. Branch in section 237 of his Annotated P.C. There being nothing to show that this relator was in fact arrested, or that he is in custody, we have no authority to act further in the premises.

The petition will be denied and the cause dismissed.
February 2, 1998
 
                         Amendment No. 1
                               to
                  Schedule A to Exhibit (10)(j) 	
                         February 1, 1997

   Form of Indemnification Agreement with each Director is 
   dated as of December 11, 1986, except for the Agreements
   with:

        (i)  Messrs. Charles R. Weaver and Richard B. Madden,
             which are dated as of February 20, 1987, and
             May 6, 1988, respectively;

       (ii)  Messrs. Allen F. Jacobson and Richard M. Morrow
             and Dr. William T. Weyerhaeuser, which are dated
             as of February 22, 1990;

      (iii)  Mr. John M. Richards, which is dated as of
             January 1, 1991;

       (iv)  Mrs. Vivian W. Piasecki and Mr. Richard M. Rosenberg,
             which are dated as of December 10, 1992; and 

        (v)  Mr. Kenneth T. Derr, which is dated as of
             January 1, 1994.

       (vi)  Mr. L. Pendleton Siegel, which is dated as of
             November 1, 1997.




                                                         Exhibit (10)(j)(i)
Amendmt to Collaborative Research, Development and Commercialization Agrmt



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO 
 COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND 
 COMMERCIALIZATION AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of New Jersey, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, a Swiss corporation (collectively, “Roche”), on the one hand, and KOSAN Biosciences, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
(“Kosan”), on the other hand, are parties to that Collaborative Research, Development and Commercialization Agreement entered into as of September 19, 2002 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, in performance of the Agreement Kosan has incurred certain costs associated
with research and development related to the compound known as KOS-1584, which costs exceed the previously stipulated amounts set forth in the Agreement for reimbursement by Roche; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Roche agrees to reimburse Kosan for the aforesaid costs; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE Roche and Kosan each desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth below: 
  
 Section 4.2 shall be amended by the addition of the following at the end of the section:

  
 Notwithstanding and independent of the above, Kosan shall
perform certain early stage development activities related to the compound known as KOS-1584 as agreed to in advance by the Parties. Roche shall reimburse Kosan in arrears on a quarterly basis for its expenses incurred as a result of such pre-agreed
early stage development activities within thirty (30) days after Roche receives an invoice from Kosan. 







 Amendment to Collaborative Research, Development And Commercialization Agreement 
 Page -2- 
  
 General. This amendment is deemed effective July 1, 2004, and may not be further amended, modified or altered except in accordance with the terms of Section 16.8 of the Agreement. Except as it has been specifically amended pursuant
to this amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict, inconsistency or incongruity between any provision of this amendment and the Agreement, this amendment shall govern and control. The signatories
hereto represent that they have the requisite power and authority to enter into this amendment on behalf of the respective parties hereto. This amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. 
  

					
	Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.	 	 	 	 
			
	/s/ George. W. Johnston	 	 	 	 
	 By: George W. Johnston
 Title: VP
 Date: 8/5/04
	 	 	 	 
			
	F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd	 	 	 	F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
			
	/s/ M. Mulqueen	 	 	 	Signature illegible
	 By: M. Mulqueen
 Title: Global Head of Alliance
Management
 Date: 11 August 2004
	 	 	 	 By:
 Title
 Date:

			
	Kosan Biosciences, Inc.	 	 	 	 
			
	/s/ Daniel V. Santi	 	 	 	 
	 By: Daniel V. Santi
 Title: Chairman and CEO

Date:
	 	 	 	 

  

 2
Synergy	UAS	Inc.	Petition	for	Exemption 1

Statement of Public Interest

Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704

This comment is submitted in response to July 28 Letter requesting additional information 

about how the proposed UAS petition is in the public interest. 

Aerial photography and videography provides geographical information for a variety of 

applications such as real estate marketing and development, internet and smart phone 

applications, and utility infrastructure monitoring, all currently obtained through manned 

aircraft and orbital satellites. The current method of collecting this type of data is cost 

prohibitive for the small business owner. Using Synergy UAS services will help reduce the 

cost which in turn also creates more economic benefits for large business, government 

agencies, and internet service providers.

The proposed use does not pose a threat to public safety because our aircraft are small in 

size and made of frangible materials. Furthermore, they do not contain combustible fuel and 

has significantly reduced risk of fire and its collateral effects when compared to manned 

aircraft. Additionally, the aircraft does not produce carbon emissions which helps to mitigate 

the effects of human contribution to global warming. 

Another benefit to the public is our proposed exemption will create employment opportunities. 

We will need pilots, maintenance personnel, photo and video specialists, and management 

staff. Furthermore, if our pilot certificate exemption is approved, we will be able to 

immediately hire experienced people who may be operating without proper authorizations. 

This has the benefit of mitigating illegal activity as it is perhaps the most pressing concern as 

expressed by the media, our local FSDO, and the public at large.

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________

Robert Walker, President

Synergy UAS Inc.

1029	Paseo	Entrada

Chula	Vista,	CA	91910

synergyuas@cox.net

619-520-6718
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 PORTRAIT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(in thousands, except ratios)
 For the Fiscal Year2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Fixed Charges:Net interest expense (including
amortization of deferred financing
costs)
    
    $
    39,740
    
    
    $
    32,459
    
    
    $
    30,706
    
    
    $
    28,610
    
    
    $
    29,683Fixed charges
    
    $
    39,740
    
    
    $
    32,459
    
    
    $
    30,706
    
    
    $
    28,610
    
    
    $
    29,683Earnings:Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income taxes
    
    $
    (34,442
    )
    
    $
    (14,971
    )
    
    $
    3,470
    
    
    $
    (382
    )
    
    $
    (18,289
    )Fixed charges
    
    $
    39,740
    
    
    
    32,459
    
    
    
    30,706
    
    
    
    28,610
    
    
    
    29,683Earnings
    
    $
    5,298
    
    
    $
    17,488
    
    
    $
    34,176
    
    
    $
    28,228
    
    
    $
    11,394Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges
    
    $
    (34,442
    )
    
    $
    (14,971
    )
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    (382
    )
    
    $
    (18,289
    )Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
#### COMER v. STATE.

No. 15023.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 16, 1932.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment contained two counts; one charging possession of intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, the other charging transportation of such liquor. Both counts were submitted to the jury in the charge of the court. The verdict read as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of transporting and possessing intoxicating liquor, and assess his punishment at one (1) year confinement in penitentiary. H. C. Morgan, Foreman.” The judgment of the court recited that appellant had been found guilty “as charged in the indictment, and as found by the jury.” The sentence of the court stated that appellant had been ad.judged guilty of “possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor.” We cannot say more plainly than we have already said that one accused of separate offenses -in different counts cannot he convicted of both. Identical cases and proceedings appear in Wooten v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 524, 15 S.W.(2d) 635, and McBride v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 274, 16 S.W.(2d) 132, and practically the same question in Luttrell v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 277, 31 S.W.(2d) 818, upon rehearing.

This is not a case wherein a general verdict was returned, as in Guse v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 212, 260 S. W. 852, but one in which the verdict specified a finding of guilt of both counts.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MONICA ANNE MARIE MATULA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 543 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------



                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 Commodore Applied  Technologies,  Inc
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Shelby T. Brewer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


         (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.



/s/ Shelby T. Brewer
--------------------
Shelby T. Brewer
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002



                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 Commodore Applied  Technologies,  Inc
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, James M. DeAngelis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


         (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.



/s/ James M. DeAngelis
----------------------
James M. DeAngelis
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

KAREN RAZLER THEK

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM INACTIVE STATUS :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 18 0 DB 201 7 (No. 7 RST 2018)

Attorney Registration No. 92827

( Montgomery County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of February

, 201 8 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated February 12 , 2018

, is approved and it is ORDERED

that Karen Razler Thek

, who has been on Inactive Status

, has never been suspended or

disbarred, and has demonstrated that s he has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of th e Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner.