alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32011M6118 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32011M6118

**Commission Decision of 16/02/2011 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6118 - BAIN CAPITAL INVESTORS / IMCD) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 16.2.2011

SG-Greffe(2011) D/2265

PUBLIC VERSION C(2011) 1076 final

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying party: |

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6118 – BAIN CAPITAL INVESTORS/ IMCD Notification of 12.01.2011 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 19, 20.01.2011, p.10

1. On 12 January 2011, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Bain Capital Investors LLC ("Bain Capital Investors", United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of IMCD Holding B.V. and its subsidiaries ("IMCD", Kingdom of the Netherlands), by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Bain Capital Investors: private equity investment firm;

- for IMCD: distribution of specialty chemicals (including food and pharmaceutical ingredients).

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(b) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission (signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 12, 2011 |                          |   |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |                          |   |
|                          | /s/ David Ly                  |   |
|                          | David Ly                      |   |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|                          | (Principal Executive Officer) |

----
Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal EmployeesRetirement Group Life Health Benefits RetirementSystem Insurance Program System

United States

Office ofPersonnel ManagementThe Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance ServicePayroll Office Letter

                                                  Number: P-99–22 Date: October 21, 1999

Subject:  JOINT BENEFIT OFFICER/PAYROLL OFFICE MEETING

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that there will be an InteragencyAdvisory Group (IAG) meeting on Wednesday, November 3, 1999 at 1:30 P.M. inthe OPM Auditorium, 1900 E St. NW, Ground Floor.  Since the agenda willinclude the FEHB Open Season, you may be interested in attending.

If you should have any questions, please contact us on (202) 606-0606.

Robert A. Yuran, ChiefFinancial Policy StaffRetirement and Insurance Service
Exhibit 10.84


 


 


 


ADDENDUM
"C'.


TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


of


Matthew M.
McKenzie, Employee


 


THIS THIRD ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered
into this 1 day of March 2014, by and-between CUI Global, Inc., a Colorado corporation (hereinafter "CUI Global" or "Employer")
and Matthew M. McKenzie, hereinafter ("Employee"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties" or in the
singular as “Party”.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global entered into an Employment
Agreement dated May 15, 2008 that provides for all customary-matters inter alia compensation, bonus, term, etc.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global entered into an Addendum
"A" to Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2010 that provides for all customary matters inter alia compensation, bonus,
term, etc.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global entered into an Addendum
"B" to Employment


Agreement dated July 1, 2013 that provides for all
customary matters inter alia compensation, bonus, term, etc.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global have agreed to modify
and revise certain terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement as modified and to retain, intact, all non-modified provisions
and covenants.


 


IT IS THEREFORE AGREED:


 


		6.	EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement is entered into and is effective on the date indicated above and. except as otherwise noted
herein, shall remain in effect until such time as it is terminated as provided for herein.



 


		7.	TERM OF EMPLOYMENT. The Term of Employment as set forth in previous addendum shall be extended to and through December 31,
2015.



 


		8.	SEVERANCE AGREEMENT. Should the company terminate said employment relationship, Employee shall be entitled to an eighteen
(18) month severance package and, in addition, all then outstanding stock options shall be accelerated and all options shall
immediately vest to Employee.



 


		9.	COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT. Effective January 1, 2014 and each ensuing January 1 during the Term of Employment, Employee shall
receive a four percent (4%) cost-of-living adjustment to his base salary.



 


		10.	APPLICABILITY. This Addendum modifies only the specific terms set forth herein and only to the extent specifically set forth
herein and does not to in any way effect the force and effect of other provisions within the Employment Agreement.



 






    	 



    	 



    

 


This document consists of two pages including the signature
page


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED


 














	Employee	 	 	 
		 	 	 
	/s/ 	 4/2/2014	 	 
	Matthew M. McKenzie	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	CUI Global, Inc.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ 	 	 	 
	William J. Clough, President/CEO	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	CUI Global, Inc.	 	 	 
	Compensation Committee	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ 	 3/19/2014		 	 
	 	Corey A. Lambrecht
* 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

April 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40529 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SALEEM AGAJANI,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-56-2

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Saleem Agajani appeals the 33-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to commit

fraud in connection with access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1029(b)(2). As his sole ground for appeal, he asserts that the

district court erred in applying the 1995 version of the United

States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) manual, which was in

effect on the date of the offense, rather than the 2001 version. 
No. 02-40529

-2-

Agajani did not object to the use of the 1995 guidelines; we

therefore review his argument under the plain-error standard. 

See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-

37 (1993)).

Agajani has not demonstrated plain error in connection with

his sentence. Although he could have received the same 33-month

sentence under either version of the sentencing guidelines,

application of the 2001 version would have exposed him to a

higher sentencing range because Agajani’s offense involved

possession of device-making equipment and his offense level would

have been higher. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (1995) with § 2B1.1

(2001); see United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 889, 893 (5th Cir.

1999). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
September 10, 2012 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2012-4 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and
the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the
same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief
Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|By: | /s/ Connie Coffey                     
                                         
                                      Dated: March 15,
2017
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Connie Coffey

Executive Vice President, Corporate

Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60371

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ELVIS O’NEAL GRAY,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:14-CR-75-1

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Elvis O’Neal Gray of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1341, based on his submitting false and fraudulent statements and 

representations in connection with a BP oil-spill compensation claim. At trial, 

a Government witness, Jarrell, in response to a question about how she knew 

Gray had already filed his claim, referred to his ex-wife’s questioning how Gray 

had money to make purchases, because she testified Gray “wasn’t helping take 

 

* 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

January 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60371 Document: 00513348759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2016
No. 15-60371

2

care of [his] children or everything else except letting them come over and 

stay”. Gray’s counsel immediately moved for a mistrial, contending, inter alia, 

that Jarrell’s statement was prejudicial character evidence. The court denied 

the motion; Gray challenges that denial.

Our court reviews the denial of a motion for mistrial, based upon 

introduction of improper evidence, for abuse of discretion. E.g., United States 

v. Lucas, 516 F.3d 316, 345 (5th Cir. 2008). A new trial is appropriate “only 

when . . . it appears that there is a significant possibility that the prejudicial 

evidence had a substantial impact on the jury verdict”. United States v. Valles, 

484 F.3d 745, 756 (5th Cir. 2007). The court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Gray’s motion. Based on the record and the context of Jarrell’s 

statement, her reference to Gray’s taking care of his children was an “isolated 

remark[ ], that w[as] not dwelled upon by the parties”, and was not otherwise 

discussed by counsel or any other witness. See, e.g., United States v. Paul, 142 

F.3d 836, 844 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Zamora, 661 F.3d 200, 212 (5th 

Cir. 2011).

In short, any such error was harmless. Although the court did not give 

a specific curative instruction concerning Jarrell’s remark, it instructed the 

jury that Gray was not on trial for any other act, conduct, or offense not alleged 

in the indictment. See Paul, 142 F.3d at 844. Moreover, there is no significant 

possibility that Jarrell’s remark had a substantial impact on the jury verdict, 

in the light of other overwhelming evidence of Gray’s guilt presented at trial. 

See id. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60371 Document: 00513348759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2016
# L_2011277DE.01003601.xml

| 22.10.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 277/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 277/36

---

Berichtigung der Empfehlung 2011/516/EU der Kommission zur Reduzierung des Anteils von Dioxinen, Furanen und PCB in Futtermitteln und Lebensmitteln

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 218 vom 24. August 2011
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 218 vom 24. August 2011

Seite 25, Anhang, Tabelle, dritte Reihe, erste Spalte:

anstatt:

„Muskelfleisch von Fischen und Fischereierzeugnisse“

muss es heißen:

„Muskelfleisch von Zuchtfischen und Zuchtfischerei-Erzeugnisse“

---
Exhibit 10.2






EXHIBIT 10.2
LOJACK CORPORATION
First Amendment to
2008 Stock Incentive Plan, as Amended and Restated
The LoJack Corporation 2008 Stock Incentive Plan, as Amended and Restated (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the following at the end of said Section:


“Subject to applicable law, the Board or Committee, in its discretion, may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company all or part of its authority and duties with respect to the granting of Awards to individuals who are (i) not subject to the reporting and other provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and (ii) not a “Covered Employee” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code.  Any such delegation by the Board or Committee shall include a limitation as to the amount of Common Stock underlying Awards that may be granted during the period of the delegation and shall contain guidelines as to the determination of the exercise price and the vesting criteria.  The Board or Committee may revoke or amend the terms of a delegation at any time but such action shall not invalidate any prior actions of any delegate or delegates that were consistent with the terms of the Plan.”
		
	2.
	Except as otherwise amended, the Plan is hereby confirmed in all other respects.




APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:  June 25, 2014
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Jose Chavez, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tres Estrellas
     Enterprises, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     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.   I have indicated in this quarterly 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Jose Chavez
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
S. 276

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

For the relief of Sergio Lozano.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SERGIO LOZANO.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sergio Lozano

shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment

of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa

under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful

permanent resident.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Sergio Lozano enters the

United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection

(c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully

and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status

under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status

are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act.
S. 276—2

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Sergio

Lozano, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer

to reduce by one, during the current or next following fiscal year,

the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to

natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total

number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives

of the country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### FRANCO v. STATE.

No. 18713.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 24, 1937.

Morriss & Morriss, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for twelve years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed Jose Cordova by shooting him with a gun.

According to the testimony of the state, appellant was not justified in killing deceased. Appellant’s testimony raised the issue of self-defense.

Over appellant’s proper objection, the state elicited from him the fact that he had been arrested in 1930 for fighting. In the charge the court instructed the jury that the testimony relative to appellant’s arrest for fighting had been admitted for the purpose of assisting the jury, if it did, in passing upon the credibility of appellant as a witness. The jury were further advised that they would consider said testimony for no other purpose. Appellant excepted to the giving of the charge, and pointed out in the exception that said testimony should be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. The matter presents reversible error. Said testimony was inadmissible to impeach appellant inasmuch as it referred to a misdemeanor not involving moral turpitude. Williams v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 91 S.W.(2d) 709.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court .