alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015280EN.01000201.xml

| 25.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7614 — CVC Capital Partners/Royal DSM (Fibre Intermediates and Composite Resins))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 280/03)

On 22 July 2015, 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 the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7614. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7614. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Pechan CENRAP EI Summary Project_Final Aug 2007.mdb

This type of file (Microsoft Access Database) cannot be posted to the docket. This file is 

available upon request. 

For questions or requesting copies of available files, contact Michael Feldman via email at 

Feldman.michael@epa.gov or phone 214-665-9793.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00287-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.-R., A 

CHILD

----------

FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 231-556936-14

----------

DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION

----------

I join the majority in the disposition of Mother’s first two points, but I dissent 

from both the majority’s disposition of her third point and its failure to modify the 

trial court’s judgment.

Mother sought Title IV-D genetic testing and child support services from 

the Office of the Attorney General (the State) after receiving correspondence 

from the State indicating that they “needed to open a case because [she and the 

child] had medical support through the State and food stamps. So they said they 

had to open up a case for the paternity. So that’s when all this started.” The 
2

State filed the underlying lawsuit asking that Father be ordered to pay current 

and retroactive child support to Mother.

Mother’s third point and the State’s second issue (responding to Mother’s 

third point), when taken together, make clear that the trial court abused its 

discretion by ordering Mother to pay one-half of the court costs.1 I would modify 

the trial court’s judgment by deleting that order and instead ordering that Father 

pay all court costs instead of one-half of the court costs. I would then affirm the 

trial court’s judgment as modified.

Because the majority affirms the trial court’s judgment without so modifying 

it, I respectfully dissent.

/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

DELIVERED: November 23, 2016

 

1See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 231.211(a) (West 2014); In re Naylor, 160 

S.W.3d 292, 296 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. denied).
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

$1,608.00 in U.S. Currency and 2008 

Mazda, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457, 

Appellant

No. 06-14-00066-CV v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 83560). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed. 

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Robert Daugherty, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

p1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152907(135)

RAIDA ADAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 152907

COA: 318397

Oakland CC: 2011-116424-NH

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

BEAUMONT HOSPITALS, and

MARIANNE FRANCO, M.D.,

Defendants,

and

ROYAL OAK SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.

and PETER CZAKO, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 26, 2016 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
# CA2014453EN.01000301.xml

| 17.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 453/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 453/3

---

SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE RESERVE LIST

Open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7)

(2014/C 453 A/03)

Field 1: Macroeconomics

Field 1: Macroeconomics

| ZEUGNER | Stefan |
| --- | --- |

ZEUGNER

Stefan

The reserve list will be valid until 28 March 2017.

28 March 2017

---
# C_2015290EN.01000901.xml

| 4.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/9

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 290/04)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

To celebrate thirty years of the EU flag, euro-area Finance Ministers decided that euro-area Member States would strike a 2-euro commemorative coin using a common design on the national side. Euro-area citizens and residents have selected by public web-voting the winning design. Voters had a choice of five designs, which had been pre-selected by a professional jury following a design competition among European Mints, and they choose the design created by Mr Georgios Stamatopoulos, professional designer at the Bank of Greece.

Issuing country
  : France

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 30th anniversary of the EU flag

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows the EU flag as a symbol that unites people and cultures with shared visions and ideals for a better common future. Twelve stars that morph into human figures are embracing the birth of a new Europe. At the top right, in semi-circle, are the issuing country ‘RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE’ and the years ‘1985-2015’. At the right side, in between the flag and the years are the mint mark and the mint master mark. At the bottom right are the initials of the artist (Georgios Stamatopoulos).

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : October 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10774

Conference Calendar

 

PATRICK EUGENE SANDERS,

also known as Patrick Evene Sanders,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OFFICER MYERS, Fort Worth Police Department,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-325-A

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

October 26, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Eugene Sanders, Texas state prisoner # 204595,

appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

appointment of counsel. 

A trial court is not required to appoint counsel for an

indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

unless there are exceptional circumstances. Ulmer v. Chancellor,

691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Because Sanders’ case is not

particularly complex and because he has demonstrated his ability
No. 01-10774

-2-

to present his claims, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying his motion to appoint counsel. See id. at

213.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 20.1

March 24, 1998

                           ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

                             AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION

                  MELLON BANK PREMIUM FINANCE LOAN MASTER TRUST

                              ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING

                                DECEMBER 31, 1997



ANNUAL HOLDERS' DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 5.2, Servicer does hereby declare to the Trustee the
following distributions for the calendar year 1997 as set forth below:

<TABLE>
<S>     <C>                                                                 <C>

Interest Payments

A.       Pursuant to subsection 4.11(g);

         1.       Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                   $ 25,480,170.83

         2.       Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                   $  1,500,382.82

         3.       Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder        $  2,126,845.28



Principal Payments

B.       Pursuant to subsection 4.11(h)(i);

         1.       Amount Distributed to the Class A Holders                   $     0

         2.       Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                   $     0

         3.       Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder        $     0


</TABLE>



                           AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION, as Servicer


                           By  /s/ Frederick B. Ollett, III
                               ---------------------------------------
                                Name:  Frederick B. Ollett, III
                                Title:  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
**** 

**Exhibit 31.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert L. Dixon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of hopTo Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

 

 

/s/ ROBERT L. DIXON

Robert L. Dixon

Vice President of Finance

April 30, 2014
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

No. 08-16-00175-CV

IN RE: §

HALLMARK COUNTY MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY, §

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

Relator. §

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Sue Kurita, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 6 of El Paso County, 

Texas, and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be conditionally 

granted. We therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and order the trial 

court to set aside its order entered on July 21, 2016 granting the motion to compel. The writ will 

issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
# C_2015031EN.01000102.xml

| 30.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7475 — Edenred/Hermes/Eckstein/UTA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 31/02)

On 23 January 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7475. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7475. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Aviv
Boim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, 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 Company.

May 9, 2007

| |  | By: /s/ Aviv Boim
Aviv Boim, Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2731 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2245 Rosa L Parks Boulevard in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Thelma 

Harper Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself and Mr. HAGERTY) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2245 Rosa L Parks Boulevard in Nashville, 

Tennessee, as the ‘‘Thelma Harper Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THELMA HARPER POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2245 Rosa L Parks Boulevard 

6 in Nashville, Tennessee, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Thelma Harper Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2731 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Thelma Harper Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Captial Institutional Properties 1995 Third Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in
its entirety be reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000352983
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           5,433
<SECURITIES>                                     5,264
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           6,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,821)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,662
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,517
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    15.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016060EN.01000101.xml

| 16.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7921 — Cinven/Kurt Geiger)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 60/01)

On 10 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32016M7921. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7921. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7025

NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHIEF DEPUTY DUDLEY MUSIER; OFFICER WATSON,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SHERIFF MICHAEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-00388-MGL)

Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd 

Willcox, II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathanael Lenard Reynolds appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Reynolds

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation 

could waive appellate review of a district court order based 

upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Reynolds has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

The motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense 

is denied.

AFFIRMED