alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023242EN.01000901.xml

| 7.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/9

---

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.106008

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 242/08)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.6.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.106008 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Italy |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Esonero contributivo per le assunzioni per le donne svantaggiate |
| Legal basis | Legge 178 del 2020 art.1 (commi 16-19) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Reduction of social security contributions |
| Budget | Overall budget: 113 050 000 EUR
  Annual budget: 88 500 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Giuseppe Coppola |
| Via Ciro il Grande 21- 00144 Roma |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.6.2023

Aid number

SA.106008

Member State

Italy

Region

Italy

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Esonero contributivo per le assunzioni per le donne svantaggiate

Legal basis

Legge 178 del 2020 art.1 (commi 16-19)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Reduction of social security contributions

Budget

Overall budget: 113 050 000 EUR

Annual budget: 88 500 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Name and address of the granting authority

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

---
Exhibit 23.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-63740 of Powell
Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form S-8 of our report on the consolidated financial statements as of October 31, 2003 and for each
of the two years in the period ended October 31, 2003 dated December 19, 2003, January 31, 2005 as to Note O (which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets and the restatement described in Note O), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Powell
Industries, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2004.

/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

Houston, Texas
January 31, 2005
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022221EN.01000801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/8 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10708 – CURA/OCG/DEUTSCHE EUROSHOP JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 221/07)

1.

On 30 May 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022221EN.01000801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | KG CURA Vermögensverwaltung GmbH & Co (‘CURA’, Germany), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Oaktree Capital Group, LLC (‘OCG’, United States), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Deutsche EuroShop AG (‘Deutsche EuroShop’, Germany). |

CURA and OCG will acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Deutsche EuroShop.

The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 23 May 2022.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CURA: active in real estate in the shopping, office, traffic, hotel, residential and industrial sectors mainly in Europe, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | OCG: active in alternative and non-traditional investment funds worldwide, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Deutsche EuroShop: active in investments and management of investments in shopping centers in Europe. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022221EN.01000801-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10708 – CURA/OCG/DEUTSCHE EUROSHOP JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022221EN.01000801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022221EN.01000801-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Exhibit 10.30


 


October 1, 2004


 


 


Mr. Eugene B. Johnson


920 Berkeley Avenue


Charlotte, North Carolina 28203


 


Dear Gene:


 


                You
currently have 213,200 fully vested options under the Company’s 1995 Stock
Option Plan, which presently expire on March 16, 2005 by the terms of FairPoint
Communications, Inc.’s (the “Company”) 1995 Stock Option Plan and your
Incentive Stock Option Agreement dated as of March 16, 1995.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
Paragraph 1(d)(ii) of your 1995 Incentive Stock Option Agreement, the Company
hereby agrees to extend your right to exercise all of these 1995 options until
May 21, 2008, subject to all other terms and conditions and other Option
exercise trigger events set forth in the 1995 Option Plan and your 1995 Incentive
Stock Option Agreement and also subject to your execution of this letter
agreement as provided below.


 


As consideration for the
Company’s extension of the term of your 1995 options, you have agreed that with
respect to any one or more public offerings by the Company of its equity
securities (including Income Deposit Securities) prior to May 21, 2008, you
will be offered the same rights, and be subject to the same obligations
(including pro rata subordination of your interest in the Company) in
connection with any such public offering, as the Company’s executive officers
then in office, and you have agreed that you will execute underwriter lock-up
agreements, subordination agreements and any other agreements requested to be
executed by such executive officers.  In
addition, you have acknowledged and agreed that you may be required to accept
securities which have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 if
you elect to exchange your stock options or other equity securities of the
Company for new securities to be issued by the Company in connection with any
such public offering.


 

















 


                If
the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your concurrence with the
terms of this letter agreement by signing below.  Please return the enclosed copies of this letter agreement in the
envelope provided.


 


	
   

  	
  Yours very truly,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Shirley J. Linn

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Shirley J. Linn

  
	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President

  
	
  SJL/bcs

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED AND AGREED to as
  of

  	
   

  
	
  the 1st day of October
  2004

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Eugene B. Johnson

  	
   

  
	
  Eugene B. Johnson

  	
   

  



 


2
629 Entler Avenue, Suite 15 Chico , CA 95928 (530) 332-9400 (530) 332- 9417 Fax

December 9, 2015 

### To: Carol Sutkus, (916} 322-1229 e-mail: Caroi.Sutkus@arb .ca.gov From: Jason Mandly, As sociate Air Quality Planner Butte County Air Quality Management District Telephone : (530} 332-9400 x108 e-mail: jmandly@bcaqmd.org W. James Wagoner Air Pollution Control Officer Robert McLaughlin Asst. Air Pollution Control Officer

Attached please find submittal to the Butte County Air Quality Management Distri ct' s State Implementation Plan (SIP} for PM2.5 for the following: Rule 300, Open Burning, Prohibitions and Exemptions (amended August 27 , 2015} The District requests that the California Air Resources Board subm it the attached SIP to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} upon review . The approved amendments to Rule 300 addressed the rule deficiencies as identified by the EPA in order to improve the clar it y of t he regulation and to attain full SIP approval. If you have any questions, please contact me at (530} 332-9400, ext 108. Since r 1; y, /) 

# I VI . (/_,.

**~) :.**  **<;** \\ 1 

## I \., I

**Jaso~ ndly**  Associate Air Quali
#### KUGLE v. STATE.

No. 15787.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 19, 1933.

E. T. Adams, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for misdemeanor embezzlement ; punishment being assessed at 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

Appellant was indicted under the general embezzlement statute, which is article 1534, P. C. It was alleged that he was the agent of the Glen Rose Independent School District, Incorporated, and that he converted to his own use without the consent of said school district $5 which had come into his possession by virtue of his agency. '

Motion was made to quash the indictment upon various grounds, but we fail to discover any vice in it.

The evidence shows that appellant had received the nomination as tax collector of Som-ervell county, and that officers of the independent school district had made arrangements with him to collect the school tax due for the district, believing that it would be 1⁄8-sier to collect it in that way than to have an independent collector. The proof shows that the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company sent appellant a check for $46.97, included in which was $5 for the school district in question. It was the contention of the state that appellant passed said check to his credit and failed to account to the school district for the $5 due it.

We think it necessary to discuss but one question. In the charge the jury was authorized, if they found appellant guilty, to assess his punishment at imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 2 years, and by a fine not exceeding $500, or by such imprisonment without fine. The penalty assessed was 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail. The general embezzlement statute (article 1534) provides that the punishment for embezzlement shall be the same as if the accused had committed theft. By Acts of the 40th Legislature (1927), chapter 157, page 232, punishment for theft of property of the value of $5 or under was fixed at a fine not to exceed $200. See article 1422, as amended (Yernon’s Ann. P. C. art. 1422). The provisions of article 1534 fixes the penalty for embezzlement the same as if for theft. The undisputed evidence shows that the amount claimed to have been embezzled was only $5, the same as charged in the indictment. The penalty which the jury was authorized and. did assess is not permitted by the law.

The county court had jurisdiction to try the case. Patterson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S.W.(2d) 458. But the jury was misdirected as to the penalty, to appellant’s injury. Hall v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 381, 12 S.W.(2d) 1024; Keenan v. State, 120 Tex. Cr. R. 616, 48 S.W.(2d) 264; Lee v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 429, 28 S.W.(2d) 559.

This was fundamental error, for which it becomes necessary to reverse and remand the judgment, and it is accordingly so ordered.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23(b)



               [NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]



                CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

As oil and gas consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name and our
report dated November 5, 2004 in this Form 10-K, incorporated by reference into
Peoples Energy Corporation's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos.
333-84594 and 333-70702 on Form S-3, and 2-82760, 33-6369, 033-63193, 333-62070,
333-113204 and 333-116192 on Form S-8.

                                           NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                           By: /s/ Danny D. Simmons
                                               ---------------------------------

                                           Danny D. Simmons

                                           Executive Vice President


Houston, Texas
December 14, 2004
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-10084

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

STEVEN SHAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(7:94-CR-013-Y)

October 31, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant, Steven Shaw, appeals his conviction following trial

for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it. We affirm.

First, Appellant argues that the district court erred by

allowing Luz Luna, a cooperating witness, to testify that he and

Shaw had been involved in a similar drug transaction several months
2

before the transaction in question. Luna’s testimony about the

earlier event was uncorroborated. The district court allowed the

evidence as proof of intent and instructed the jury accordingly.

Appellant contends that, since Luna’s testimony was totally

uncorroborated, its probative value was clearly outweighed by its

prejudice. We need not decide this question because, if it was

error to admit this evidence, the error was harmless by reason of

the overwhelming evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction. The

questioned evidence did not affect the Appellant’s substantial

rights. United States v. Hooker, 997 F.2d 67, 76 (5th Cir. 1993).

Appellant next argues that the Government’s evidence was

insufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that

his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. United States

v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,

113 S.Ct. 1346 (1993). Our careful review of the record fully

convinces us that evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Appellant

was arrested during an arranged transaction with a cooperating

witness posing as seller of the drugs. Appellant met with the

supposed seller, they discussed the drugs and price, Appellant had

in his possession at arrest over $50,000 in cash and attempted to

flee the scene. The amount of drugs supposed to have been

exchanged was one kilogram, a guantity more than sufficient to

allow the jury to infer intent to distribute. 

Shaw also complains that the evidence was insufficient to

rebut his entrapment defense. Again we review to determine whether
3

a reasonable jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

Appellant was predisposed to commit the offense. The testimony of

Luna, DEA Agent Lange and Police Officer Kendall showed beyond any

doubt Shaw’s willing participation in the drug transaction.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



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 ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  November 19, 2008

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Commodore Applied Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

















1
July 29, 2011

Mr. Robert A. Stenevik Commemorative Air Force, Inc.

109 San Medina Lane Joshua, TX 76058

Dear Mr. Stenevik:

This is in response to your December 28, 2010 request (FAA Docket No. FAA-2002-11285) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Commemorative Air Force, Inc. to revise conditions and limitations associated with exemption 6802I and further amend the exemption by adding Harvard II and MK IV aircraft.

On March 23, 2011, the FAA issued a moratorium on the issuance of Living History Flight Experience (LHFE) exemptions. A copy of the Federal Register notice is enclosed for your

information.

This moratorium provides the FAA a needed opportunity to reevaluate the LHFE policy and the conditions of issuance of these exemptions. During this moratorium, industry will be given an opportunity to provide input to shape the agency’s revised LHFE policy. The FAA plans to seek industry input on the evolution of LHFE operations in the private sector, which have raised public safety and policy concerns. The FAA plans to hold a public meeting, which will be announced in the Federal Register, to give industry a venue to provide input that will be considered as the agency reevaluates and revises the LHFE policy.

Current LHFE exemption holders can continue to operate under their current exemption. If the exemption is due to expire during the moratorium, the FAA will accept and process petitions to extend current exemptions in accordance with the established regulatory exemption process. If a change is required (i.e., removal of an aircraft) the FAA will accept these changes in accordance with the regulatory process. Additionally, during the moratorium, as petitioners request extensions to their LHFE exemption, the FAA will add the following clarifying limitations to all LHFE exemptions to ensure consistent application of current LHFE policy:

1. Passengers are prohibited from manipulating the aircraft flight controls when the aircraft is operated under the LHFE exemption; and2

2. No aerobatics may be performed in the aircraft while operating under the LHFE exemption.

Finally, the FAA will begin its evaluation of the current LHFE exemption policies and practices, to include evaluation of safety to the paying members of the public who have an expectation of aircraft safety and who may not understand the inherent risks associated with such flight. The FAA expects to publish a new proposed LHFE policy for comment on or before September 30, 2012.

No new LHFE exemptions will be issued during this moratorium nor will any aircraft be added to existing exemptions. Accordingly, no further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         6,136
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,543
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,887,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                 178,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,770,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        836,724
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    225,000
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     666,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,770,707
<SALES>                                        67,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               67,459
<CGS>                                          36,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  36,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,453)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                19,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            19,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   19,982
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.44



</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**225 KA 15-01358**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TERRY L. DRAKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

GENESEE VALLEY LEGAL AID, INC., GENESEO (JEANNIE D. MICHALSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a resentence of the Livingston County Court (Dennis S. Cohen, J.), rendered September 9, 2010. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of incest in the third degree (two counts). It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.
Same memorandum as in People v Drake ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 29, 2016]).

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### WILSON v. STATE.

No. 20562.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1939.

John H. Dittmar and Archie S. Brown, Jr., both of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for robbery, punishment assessed being thirty years in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges the offense. No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.