alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015430EN.01000201.xml

| 22.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 430/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 430/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7510 — Olam/ADM Cocoa Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 430/03)

On 10 June 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 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 32015M7510. 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 32015M7510. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00624-CR

IN RE Juan ENRIQUEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 28, 2016, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered the petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 3862, styled The State of Texas v. Juan Enriquez, pending in the 81st Judicial 

District Court, Karnes County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes, presiding.
# CA2014145EN.01001201.xml

| 15.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 145/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 145/12

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 145 A/02

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          LASERLOCK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June
30, 2005 of LaserLock Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norman
Gardner, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and principal
financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or
      Section 78o(d)); and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.



August   12,  2005
                                        /s/ NORMAN GARDNER
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Norman Gardner
                                        President and CEO
                                        (Principal executive officer and
                                        principal financial officer)



 Explanatory            Note: The same individual serves as Chief Executive
                        Officer (principal executive officer) and principal
                        financial officer. Accordingly, there are no other
                        individuals who are "other certifying officers" referred
                        to in this certification.
# C_2014180EN.01000201.xml

| 13.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7245 — Katara Hospitality/InterContinental Hotels Group/Danube Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 180/02)

On 5 June 2014, 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7245. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7245. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 540 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 483

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, upon the recommendation of the 

Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before 

adoption at 45 Pa.B. 5915 (October 3, 2015), and a Final Report to be published with 

this Order:

It is ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that the amendments to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 540 are 

adopted, in the attached form. 

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective April 1, 2017.

Additions to the rules are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
---

---

EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION

# PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

# AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Oded Bashan, as Chief Executive Officer of On Track Innovations Ltd. (the
Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)              the
accompanying Form 20-F report for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
          with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.

|Dated:  May 1, 2005 |  | BY: /S/ Oded Bashan
Oded BashanChief Executive Officer of the Company
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84

---

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0193. TANYA HARRIS v. TYRONE OLIVER

This case was docketed by this court on September 23, 2015, and appellant’s

brief and enumerations of error were due October 13, 2015. On January 13, 2016,

this court entered an order requiring you to file your brief within 14 days or your

appeal may be dismissed. As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed a brief

and enumeration of errors and has not requested any extensions of time in which to

do so. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED as abandoned pursuant to

Court of Appeals Rules 13 and 23. 

To Tayna Harris: Your appeal has been DISMISSED because your brief and

enumeration of errors were not filed when due. If you have decided you do not want

to appeal, you need not do anything more. However, if you do still want to appeal,

you may have the right to an OUT-OF-TIME APPEAL - but you MUST TAKE

ACTION to exercise that right by moving for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court. 

If your motion for an out-of-time appeal is denied, you may appeal that denial to this

court within thirty (30) days of the trial court’s decision. See: Rowland v. State, 264

GA 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/02/2016

February 02, 2016
EXHIBIT 23.2

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated February 23,
1997, on the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1996, included in this Form 10-KSB,
into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
33-76614 and No. 333-46383) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-50769 and No. 333-63915).

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP

New York, New York
October 8, 1998
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries of Videotron Ltd.



|                                              |  |                                              
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
Organization
|                                              | 
|Le SuperClub Vidéotron ltée                   |  | Quebec                                       
|                                              | 
|Société dédition et de Transcodage T.E. ltée |  | Quebec                                       
|                                              | 
|Videotron US Inc.                             |  | Delaware                                     
|                                              | 
|7215924 Canada inc.                           |  | Canada                                       
|                                              | 
|9227-2590 Québec inc.                         |  | Quebec                                       
|                                              | 
|Videotron G.P.                                |  | Quebec                                       
|                                              | 
|9230-7677 Québec inc.                         |  | Quebec                                       
|                                              | 
|Videotron L.P.                                |  | Quebec
#### Horton vs. Arnold.

A chattel note is not commercial paper, and any failure of consideration may be inquired into, whether it was transferred before or after maturity.

In an action upon a chattel note, where the answer, after setting up a failure of the consideration, alleged further that the note was transferred from the , original payee to the plaintiff after due, the court did not err in striking out such further allegation, on motion, as immaterial and redundant.

The proper remedy in such a case is by *motion,*and not by *demurrer.*

It was no objection to the order granting such motion, that the original answer had not been filed, the court having permitted the plaintiff, at the hearing, to file the copy served upon him. R. S., oh. 140, sec. 48.

APPEAL from tbe County Court of *Winnebago*County.

The case is stated by the court.

*Freeman & Jackson,*for appellant.

*Whittemore S Weisbrod,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

This is an appeal from an order striking out a portion of the answer for immateriality and redundancy. There can be no doubt that the objection to the answer was well taken. The action was brought upon a chattel note which had been transferred to the plaintiff. That portion of the answer stricken out stated that the consideration of the note had failed, and that the same was transferred after it became due. The defense of failure of consideration had been previously set up in the answer. The only new fact stated in that portion of the answer stricken out was, that the note was transferred after it became due. This allegation was probably made for the purpose of showing that the note was subject to the equities existing between the original parties. But as the *140note was not commercial paper, any defect or infirmity in tbe consideration could be inquired into, whether it was transferred before or after it became due. Hence the immateriality and redundancy of the matter stricken out. That the remedy was by motion to strike out, and not by demurrer, is clear from the language of the statute. Sec. 22, ch. 125, R. S. It is contended, however, that the county judge erred in hearing and deciding the motion when he did, because the. original answer had not been filed. A copy of it had been served, and when this, with other objections, was taken to the hearing of the motion, the county judge permitted the plaintiff to file such copy. This he had power to do under the provision of the statute. Sec. 48, ch. 140, R. S. If the copy served was not a correct one, the defendant had it in his power to obviate all doubt on that point by filing the original answer. The plaintiff, not having the original in his possession, was not in a situation to prove that his copy was a correct one. And as the defendant withheld such original, there was no alternative but for the court to pursue the course it did.

The order of the county judge is therefore affirmed, with costs.
# C_2014465EN.01000701.xml

| 24.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 465/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 465/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7446 — Telenor/Schibsted/Naspers/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 465/09)

On 18 December 2014, 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 32014M7446. 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 32014M7446. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.30
 Oplink Communications, Inc.
 Amendment to  Amended and Restated  Executive Corporate Event Agreement
 Amendment
 Recital
 Whereas,
 Whereas
 Whereas,
 Agreement
 Now, Therefore
 1.
 (ii)
 Exhibit A as defined in Section 2
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



2. General Provisions.
 (a) Continuing Effect of Agreement; No Waiver.
 (b) Counterparts.
 (c) Governing Law.
 2




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof Amendment
 EXECUTIVE:
    
    OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.:/s/ Bruce Horn
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Joseph LiuBruce Horn
    
    Print Name:
    
    Joseph LiuTitle:
    
    President and CEO




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 Options with 24 month post-termination exercise period
 Grant Date
    
    Grant ID
    
    
    Plan
    
    
    Shares
    
    
    Exercise Price5/10/00
    
    
    NQ980492
    
    
    
    1998
    
    
    
    540,000
    
    
    $
    2.505/10/00
    
    
    19980492
    
    
    
    1998
    
    
    
    160,000
    
    
    $
    2.504/5/01
    
    
    20000972
    
    
    
    2000
    
    
    
    175,000
    
    
    $
    2.232
#### Faesi vs. Goetz, impleaded, &c.

May 5.

where a complaint for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real estate demanded a personal judgment against the mortgagor alone for the deficiency, and there were other parties defendant, a demurrer by the mortgagor for a misjoinder of causes of action, was well taken, under the Revised Statutes of 1858.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

The case is stated in the syllabus and the opinion.

*Jas. Gf. Jenkins,*for appellant.

Waldo, *Ody &*Van, for respondent.

*By the Court,*

PAINE, J.

This was an action to foreclose a mortgage, in which a personal judgment was claimed for the deficiency. There was a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action, and the plaintiff had judgment for the frivolousness of the demurrer.

We have several times decided such demurrers not to be frivolous, and subsequently that they were well taken, where the different causes of action did not affect all the different parties. *Walton vs. Goodnow,*13 Wis., 661; *Sauer vs. Steinbauer,*14 id., 70; *Cary vs. Wheeler,*id., 281. Even if we were inclined to review our latter decision, holding the demurrer well taken, we certainly should not hold it frivolous. But the argument of counsel in this case did not change our opinion. It was based entirely on the fact that all the facts stated in the complaint were necessarily stated to establish the equitable cause of action, to bar a redemption. This being so, it was said, that as the complaint did not profess to state any second cause of action separately, therefore it must be held to state only one, although the relief demanded included a judgment both for the legal and the equitable cause of action. We'think this position cannot be sustained, for the reason that although all the facts stated were necessary to the equitable cause of action, it is equally apparent that they are entirely suf&cient for both causes of action. And therefore, to determine whether they were set forth for the ’purpose of showing both causes of action, the prayer for relief must be looked to. And this clearly shows that the intention of the pleader was to proceed for both causes of ac-*232ti°n, as bas always been tbe practice bere, until tbe statute providing for it was repealed. Tbe intention being thus apparent, and tbe facts stated entirely sufficient to accomplish that intent, it would be allowing tbe pleader to take advantage of bis own fault, to escape from a demurrer, on tbe ground that be did not state tbe two causes of action separately.

Tbe judgment must be reversed, with costs.
# C_2015280EN.01000101.xml

| 25.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7692 — Ferrero/Thorntons)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 280/01)

On 13 August 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 32015M7692. 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 32015M7692. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00218-CR

Christopher Robin

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-03949

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 21, 2015