alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
... 

REF ID:A2263213e 

BORIS HAGELIN Zug, Dec. 2nd, 1961. 

Dear Bill: 

Many thanks for your kind letter of Nov. 27. I was ha1)py to learn 

that you hPuVe approved my motives for calling my boat "Astarte", 

as it would have been rather unpleasai.rt for me to s·Lay under 

suspicion for moral turpitude. 

I was also happy to learn th11t you like ·the clock and that it 

serves its purpose well. 

With regard to Sture, he lrn.s_ been looking for the cuff links, 

as yet without success. He is going to renew his search. 

As to our mutual "friend" H.B., I saw him last when visiting Bo 

nearly two years ago. He crune to see 12.£.• - I have to deal with 

people from Engstroms outfit, and have as yet only very pleasant 

<:nmtacts. 

And many thanks also for the Season's Greetings, which I beg to 

reciprocate! Annie and I are going to Sweden on the 18th, for 

X-mas, and are stopping over in Kiel on the 19th for Hells 60-year 

anniversary. Before that, we are going to Vienna on the 6th, for 

a few days: a little business, and then the opera and other 

cultural enjoyments. We were also in Bonn a couple of weeks ago, 

where our business is very good, so you cnn see that both myself ., and Annie are in good form. And we do hope that the srune applies 

to Elizebeth and your good self! 

We send you both our affectionate regards and best wishes, 

Sincerely 
ii 

=' 

• 

= 

= .. 

·. ·' .· .: ·.· 

-~ ~ ~ . . . . ~-. . .. 

. . -.- ,.._ .... ·.· 

. . 

·.' . Washington 3,· 

., ... 

·. \· .... 
.. 

'· ..... 

·.· . . . , ~ ' . '· 

.,)' .... ~ :·.:. ·.;:->-~-........... 

. _.,_:·.:--:-~. _:. '-. 

~; ~: 

............ -- ~;.F"""I:Et:"A2i!"Ei3"f-':t~_ .-,,. _ .. ,~I 

, . .:,-.··.,-•, ·_--:.~~- /' 

-. : -:z~y.::::<~·- .. 

,· 

· .. -.' 

. .. ... 

~. ·.· .. ;~ ~--~ 

.• ~- ~\~~- ~:~ ~-·, 

.. '.~ ·.,.. , . 

~- ~ .'~~.>: ... .. 

.. ·: 

FROHE WEIHNACHTEN VND EIN 

(/LOCKLICHES NEVES JAHR 

VN JOYEVX NOEL ET VNE 

BONNE ET HEVREVSE ANNtE 

BEST WISHES FOR A MERRY CHRISTMAS 

AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR 

CRYPTO ACi ZVCi 

-I 

·, = 

-

• 

--

--

iii 

--

-! 

-;;;;;: 

= 

~ 

iiiii" 

!!!! 

ii --

--

• =' 

---

-

• -

--

= -iii 

= • 

-... 

-!!! 

-

•
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-15-010]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

 March 31, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

 Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-432, 731-TA-1024-1028, and AA1921-188 (Second Review) (Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on April 10, 2015.

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 24, 2015.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-07022 Filed 3-24-15; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

s0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

139692 & (29)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139692 COA: 291337 Ingham CC: 03-000461-FC AARON DANIEL CANTLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The
motion to add issues is DENIED.
# C_2015308EN.01000102.xml

| 18.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7633 — KIA/GAS Natural Fenosa/GPG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 308/02)

On 11 September 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 32015M7633. 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 32015M7633. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

868 

KA 13-01993 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

JOHN E. SABINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W.

Latham, J.), rendered June 25, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by defendant on August 29, 2016, and by the attorneys for the

parties on August 9 and 15, 2016,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

upon stipulation.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2015435EN.01000501.xml

| 24.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 435/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 435/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7610 — Danish Crown/Westfleisch/WestCrown JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 435/02)

On 2 December 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 32015M7610. 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 32015M7610. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 24.5


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



     KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman, Lawrence E.
Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the
REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 25 day
of February, 1998.



                                                     /s/ EDWARD J. LANDAU
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     EDWARD J. LANDAU
# C_2015330EN.01000101.xml

| 7.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7716 — Pfizer/GSK Menacwy Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 330/01)

On 9 September 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 32015M7716. 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 32015M7716. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN 

INSURANCE COMPANY; ARCH 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and 

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendants BelowAppellants,

v.

TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL & 

INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; 

TIAA-CREF INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC; TEACHERS 

ADVISORS, INC.; TEACHERS 

INSURANCE AND ANNUITY 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; and 

COLLEGE RETIRMENT EQUITIES,

Plaintiffs BelowAppellees.

§

§

§ No. 555, 2016

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ C.A. No. N14C-05-178

§ (CCLD)

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 29, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 29th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the notice of 

interlocutory appeal and its exhibits, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The defendants-appellants (collectively, “the Insurers”) are insurance 

companies that issued professional liability insurance policies to the plaintiffs-
2

appellees (collectively, “TIAA-CREF”). The Insurers have petitioned this Court 

under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from an opinion of 

the Superior Court dated October 20, 2016 (“the Summary Judgment Opinion”). 

Among other things, the Summary Judgment Opinion granted TIAA-CREF’s 

motion for summary judgment, finding that the amount that TIAA-CREF paid to 

settle three class action lawsuits constituted a covered loss under the Insurers’ 

policies and that the Insurers’ coverage obligations were not relieved by any public 

policy. 

(2) The Insurers filed an application for certification to take an 

interlocutory appeal of the Summary Judgment Opinion in the Superior Court on

October 31, 2016. TIAA-CREF filed its response in opposition on November 10, 

2016. 

(3) The Superior Court denied the certification application on November 

16, 2016. In denying certification, the Superior Court noted that the Summary 

Judgment Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance and that

interlocutory review of the Summary Judgment Opinion potentially could 

terminate the litigation. Nonetheless, the Superior Court denied certification 

because the Summary Judgment Opinion did not meet any of the other criteria for 

certification set forth in Rule 42(b)(iii). Among other things, the court concluded 

that this case is not exceptional and that interlocutory review would be inefficient 
3

and disruptive because trial on the two remaining issues in the case is set to begin 

December 5, 2016. 

(4) We agree with the Superior Court’s analysis. Applications for 

interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the 

exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for 

interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 

Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 

interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Kevin M. Harris, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of I-many, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 7, 2005       /S/ KEVIN M. HARRIS         Kevin M. Harris    Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-23-00530-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. LUIS V. SAENZ

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

Relator the State of Texas ex rel. Luis V. Saenz filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus asserting that the trial court has “a ministerial duty to accept or reject the plea 

bargain entered into by the State and the juvenile defendant without modification.” This 

Court has requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from 

the real party in interest, J.A.G., a juvenile.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

The parties disagree regarding the relevant standard of review for this original 

proceeding: relator presented and briefed the issue raised in this original proceeding as 

a criminal matter, governed by the code of criminal procedure, in which the trial court 

failed to comply with a ministerial duty, and J.A., in contrast, argues that the trial court 

acted within its discretion under civil standards of review. Compare In re USAA Gen. 

Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (discussing the general 

“abuse of discretion” standard), with In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2020) (orig. proceeding) (discussing the “ministerial act” requirement). The parties further 

disagree regarding the availability and adequacy of a remedy by appeal.

A juvenile proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature, see In re L.D.C., 400 S.W.3d 572, 

574 (Tex. 2013), and the application of civil or criminal analyses in such cases vary

depending on the circumstances presented. See In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Tex. 

1999) (generally discussing the civil and criminal rules applicable to juvenile proceedings

and the different approaches taken to probation by the family code and the code of 

criminal procedure); In re I.F.M., 525 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2017, no pet.) (“Civil and criminal rules apply at different stages of the same proceeding.”); 

see e.g., TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.17 (procedure and evidence), 54.03(j) (agreements), 

54.034 (limited right to appeal with a plea or stipulation of evidence), 56.01 (right to appeal 

by juvenile), 56.03 (right to appeal by state). We need not address this issue here, 

however, because in any event, we deny mandamus relief. In short, under the ill-defined 

parameters of the plea bargain presented to the trial court, the trial court neither abused 

its discretion nor failed to comply with a ministerial duty. Accordingly, we deny the petition 
3

for writ of mandamus.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the

3rd day of January, 2024.