alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023020EN.01001401.xml

| 20.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10927 – ACTION LOGEMENT / AG2R LA MONDIALE / BNP PARIBAS / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 20/04)

On 30 November 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 32022M10927. 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 32022M10927. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### Edward A. PIELEMEIER and Edward A. Pielemeier as Executor of the Estate of Marion A. Pielemeier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Robert E. PIELEMEIER and Arlene M. Pielemeier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 74-3150, 74-3151.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 15, 1976.

*82McGee Grigsby (argued), of Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Ernest J. Brown, Atty. (argued), Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendantappellee.

Before BROWNING, BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, taxpayers assert error in the judgment rendered by the District Court on June 25,1974, in favor of the government, in a refund suit against the government for taxes allegedly overpaid. The facts are not in dispute.

The district court stated, “The issue is whether, in computing earnings and profits, plaintiffs can take advantage of the Section 1248(d)(2) exclusions without taking into account the recapture of depreciation provisions of Section 1245.” Title 26, U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code, Adopted 1962.

The facts in these cases are the same in all respects as the facts in *Brigham v. United States,*3 Cir., 1976, 539 F.2d 1312, except for the names of the plaintiff stockholders, the amount of stock in the foreign corporation that they own, and the amount of the refund claim involved. The federal question presented is identical to that in *Brigham.*In the cases at bar, the trial court ruled against the taxpayers: So did the Third Circuit in *Brigham, supra.*For the reasons stated in Judge Van Dusen’s opinion in *Brigham,*we affirm.

The motion of the taxpayers in No. 74-3150 to correct computation of tax may be filed and is denied. It is much too late in the life of the case to permit taxpayers to revive a claim for relief that, by stipulation, dropped out of the case long ago.
# Official Journal C 268/22 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 268 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5922 July 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 268

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5922 July 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2016/C 268/01 | List of competent authorities which are authorised to search directly the data contained in the second generation Schengen information system pursuant to Article 31(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 46(8) of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen information system | 1 |
| 2016/C 268/02 | List of N.SIS II Offices and the national Sirene Bureaux | 160 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2016/C 268/01

List of competent authorities which are authorised to search directly the data contained in the second generation Schengen information system pursuant to Article 31(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 46(8) of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen information system

1

2016/C 268/02

List of N.SIS II Offices and the national Sirene Bureaux

160

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Penril DataComm Networks, Inc.'s
Registration Statement No. 33-64439 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-
64437 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-31824 on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 33-40216 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-40217 on Form
S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-40218 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement
No. 33-63440 on Form S-3 of our reports dated October 17, 1995, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Penril DataComm Networks, Inc. for the year
ended July 31, 1995.

\s\Deloitte & Touche  LLP


Washington, D.C.
February 19, 1996
#### MARINE BANKING & TRUST CO. v. FEDERAL TRUST CO. et al.

No. 1433.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 26, 1933.

King, Wood & Morrow and H. E. Cox, all of Houston, for appellant.

Gill, Jones & Tyler and Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, and Burch Downman, all of Houston, for appellees.

GALLAGHER, Chief Justice.

The trial court rendered judgment in this case that appellant, Marine Banking *&*Trust Company, a corporation, take nothing by its suit against Mrs. Fannie Booty Brooks; that it recover of Federal Trust Company, administrator of the estate of R. E. Brooks, deceased, R. E. Brooks, Jr., and Enla V. Atwood, jointly and severally, the sum of $21,-935.10; and that a certified copy of such judgment be transmitted to the county court for classification and payment in due course of administration upon said estate. The court found in that connection that R. E. Brooks, Jr., and Enla V. Atwood were sureties on the note on which such judgment was rendered, and ordered that no execution issue against them for the enforcement of such judgment until appellant had received from the estate of R. E. Brooks, deceased, all sums apportioned to the payment of the same in the distribution of said estate, and that execution then issue for the balance only remaining unpaid after crediting all such sums.

Appellant presents assignments of error in which it complains of the action of the court in postponing the issuance of execution on its said judgment against R. E. Brooks, Jr., and Enla Y. Atwood until the estate of R. E. Brooks, deceased, has been fully administered and all sums apportioned to appellant for the satisfaction of its demand against the same‘actually received and credited thereon. The issue presented was considered in cause No. 1432 on the docket of this court, 64 S.W.(2d) 409, which case bears the same title that this case does. We there held that the trial court erred in so postponing the issuance of execution against the surety therein.

The judgment of the trial court is here reformed by eliminating therefrom the provision postponing the issuance of execution against said sureties, and as so reformed, such judgment is here affirmed.
#### BARNETT v. STATE.

No. 15951.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 17, 1933.

Aubrey Davee and Shropshire & Sanders, all of Brady, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, fifteen years in the penitentiary.

The robbery alleged to have occurred in this case took place in the morning before day in a store to which the owner had gone to open it up for the day’s business. Mr. Carson, the owner, had gone to the back of the store to light a stove, and heard some one walking and said “Come in.” According to Carson’s testimony appellant, a negro man, advanced upon him, presented a pistol, and robbed him of a small amount of money and left. If there was any light in the storeroom, such fact is not mentioned. Upon phone call, the sheriff arrived at the scene of the robbery soon afterward, and was given a description of the robb.er. I-Ie first arrested a negro named Punchard and brought him to Carson. On the trial the sheriff testified, over objection, that Carson “refused to identify Punchard as the robber and he was released.”

Carson testified that the robber had on blue overalls, a dark solid colored sweater and a cap, but said he did not notice what kind of shirt he wore. He had not known appellant before this occurrence. On cross-examination he was asked if he had not sworn on the examining trial that the man who robbed him had on a blue shirt, and witness said he did not so swear. After identifying his signature to the testimony taken down at such examining trial, appellant offered in evidence the written and signed statement of Carson as made at the examining trial which contained — according to the certificate of the learned trial judge who approved this bill of exception — the statement that the defendant had on at the time of the robbery blue overalls, a blue shirt, and a cap. The state’s objection to this was sustained. We think in both matters mentioned there was error. In Moore v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 50 S. W. 942, upon apparently good reasoning, this court held it wrong to admit testimony that the victimized person refused to identify other persons than the accused as the ones who committed the crime, and they were released.

Appellant in this case offered a number of witnesses who swore to an alibi. Also he offered testimony to the effect that he and the negro Punchard resembled each other, were about the same age and size, etc., and that Punchard was seen on the morning of the robbery in the vicinity thereof, and that he had on a solid colored sweater. We cannot hold under the facts in this case, involving identification of an unknown negro seen at *449best from street lights outside the building, that the refusal of the court to allow the defense to show that on the examining trial Oar-son testified differently regarding the shirt worn by the alleged robber, from what he said on this trial, may not have been sufficient to turn the scales in favor of appellant.

For the errors mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
# C_2023231EN.01000901.xml

| 30.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/9

---

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.106555

(2023/C 231/08)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 2.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.106555 |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | NL_LNV_NVLG_RTLG_Landelijke beëindigingsregeling veehouderijlocaties voor stikstofreductie |
| Legal basis | Landelijke beëindigingsregeling veehouderijlocaties voor stikstofreductie, gebaseerd op de Kaderwet EZK- en LNV-subidies (https://wetten.overheid.nl/id/BWBR0007919/2019-01-01/0?g=2019-05-01&z=2019-05-01) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Aid for closing of capacity for animal, plant or human health, sanitary, ethical or environmental reasons |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 500 000 000 EUR |
| Intensity | 100,0  % |
| Duration | Until 27.2.2028 |
| Economic sectors | Raising of dairy cattle, Raising of swine/pigs, Raising of poultry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit |
| Postbus 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag |

Date of adoption of the decision

2.5.2023

Aid number

SA.106555

Member State

Netherlands

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

NL_LNV_NVLG_RTLG_Landelijke beëindigingsregeling veehouderijlocaties voor stikstofreductie

Legal basis

Landelijke beëindigingsregeling veehouderijlocaties voor stikstofreductie, gebaseerd op de Kaderwet EZK- en LNV-subidies (https://wetten.overheid.nl/id/BWBR0007919/2019-01-01/0?g=2019-05-01&z=2019-05-01)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Aid for closing of capacity for animal, plant or human health, sanitary, ethical or environmental reasons

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 500 000 000 EUR

Intensity

100,0  %

Duration

Until 27.2.2028

Economic sectors

Raising of dairy cattle, Raising of swine/pigs, Raising of poultry

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Postbus 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag

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

---
# C_2023266EN.01000101.xml

| 28.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.107109

(2023/C 266/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.6.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.107109 |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | Romania |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Scheme for compensating agricultural producers who set up crops in spring 2022 affected by pedological drought |
| Legal basis | Proiect de ordonanță de urgență a guvernului pentru instituirea unei scheme de ajutor de stat sub forma de grant acordat producătorilor agricoli pentru unele culturi agricole înființate în primăvara anului 2022 și afectate de seceta pedologică din perioada martie –septembrie 2022 |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid to compensate for the damage caused by adverse climatic event which can be assimilated to a natural disaster |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 300 000 000 RON
  Annual budget: 300 000 000 RON |
| Intensity | 10,0  % |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Growing of cereals (except rice), leguminous crops and oil seeds |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale prin Direcțiile Agricole Județene |
| Blvd. Carol I; nr. 2-4; Sector 3; București |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.6.2023

Aid number

SA.107109

Member State

Romania

Region

Romania

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Scheme for compensating agricultural producers who set up crops in spring 2022 affected by pedological drought

Legal basis

Proiect de ordonanță de urgență a guvernului pentru instituirea unei scheme de ajutor de stat sub forma de grant acordat producătorilor agricoli pentru unele culturi agricole înființate în primăvara anului 2022 și afectate de seceta pedologică din perioada martie –septembrie 2022

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid to compensate for the damage caused by adverse climatic event which can be assimilated to a natural disaster

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 300 000 000 RON

Annual budget: 300 000 000 RON

Intensity

10,0  %

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Growing of cereals (except rice), leguminous crops and oil seeds

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale prin Direcțiile Agricole Județene

Blvd. Carol I; nr. 2-4; Sector 3; București

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 10.7

                                FUNDING AGREEMENT

This Funding Agreement ("Agreement") is dated as of 27 October 2004 and is

BETWEEN

World Gold Council, an Association established under Swiss Law, of 55 Old Broad
Street, London EC2M 1RX, England ("WGC"); and

World Gold Trust Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, of 444
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA (the "LLC").

TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement will terminate on 31 December 2006, unless the parties agree, in
writing, to an extension of this Agreement as described below.

AMOUNT AND PURPOSE OF THE FUNDING
WGC has paid to the LLC US$3,000,000 ("Funding Amount"). The Funding Amount is
to be used by the LLC, exclusively, to cover its expenses of operation for the
period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006. The Funding Amount will be placed on
deposit by the LLC until required.

REPAYMENT TERMS
On 31 December 2006 the LLC will repay to WGC the amount, if any, by which its
income for the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006 exceeds its expenses of
operation for such period, with such payment not to exceed the Funding Amount.
The Funding Amount will be deemed to be included in the LLC's income for such
period. Any difference (if positive) between the Funding Amount and the amount
so paid (such difference, the "Reduction Amount") will be added to WGC's equity
holding in the LLC, unless the parties agree, in writing, to an extension of
this Agreement for the purpose of allowing the LLC to repay the Reduction Amount
to the extent the income of the LLC exceeds the LLC's expenses of operation for
the duration of such extension of this Agreement.

NO RECOURSE
WGC shall have no recourse of any kind against the LLC for the Funding Amount or
the Reduction Amount.

INTEREST
No interest will be charged on the Funding Amount or the Reduction Amount.

GOVERNING LAW
The laws of England will govern this Agreement and the parties agree to submit
to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England.


                            [Signature Page Follows]



                                      -1-





IN WITNESS whereof, the authorised representatives of the parties have set their
hand to this Agreement on the date set out above.


SIGNED on behalf of WORLD GOLD COUNCIL

By:
                           ................................
Name (Print)
                           ................................
Title:
                           ................................



SIGNED on behalf of WORLD GOLD TRUST SERVICES, LLC

By:
                           ................................
Name (Print)
                           ................................
Title:
                           ................................



























                                      -2-
#### CLEPPER v. STATE.

No. 18529.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1936.

Tom L. Robinson, of Gatesville, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

The conviction is for the possession for the purpose of sale of whisky in a dry territory; punishment, a fine of $200.

This is a conviction for a violation of the provisions of chapter 467, Acts of the Second Called Session, 44th Leg., 1935 (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666—1. et seq.). Appellant was charged with possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, to wit, Hamilton county. Section 23a of article 1 of said chapter (Vernon’s Ann. P.C. art. 666 — 23a) makes it unlawful for any person to possess intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in any dry area. Passing up any other questions that may be raised in the record, our attention is called to the fact that the information in this case does not charge appellant with possessing such liquor for the purpose of sale, but merely charges him with the possession of liquor.. We find nothing in the statute which, under any circumstances, penalizes a person who lives in such territory merely for possessing intoxicating liquor. 'Such possession must be for the purpose of sale. The information being fatally defective in this record, we are compelled to reverse the case. We find the complaint does charge appellant with possessing such liquor for the purpose of sale. The complaint itself is doubtful, but we do not at this time pass on same. It would be better if the complaint followed the averments of that in No. 18523, Claude Privitt v. State, 98 S.W.(2d) 204, opinion this day handed down. The prosecution will not be dismissed because a new information may be filed upon the complaint.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
December 1, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with American Public Power Association (APPA) 

Attendees: 

See attached. 

Discussion: 

A general discussion was held of the issues related to the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) and APPA’s ideas and concerns regarding the MATS compliance time.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                          10,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                       817
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,320
<PP&E>                                          14,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,732
<BONDS>                                            836
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,301
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,764
<SALES>                                          1,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,599
<CGS>                                              962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)
        

</TABLE>