alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015244EN.01000101.xml

| 25.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7653 — AMF/Ilmarinen/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 244/01)

On 17 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 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 32015M7653. 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 32015M7653. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06800]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


 In the Matter of Longhai Steel, Inc., Order of Suspension of 
Trading

March 20, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Longhai Steel, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended September 30, 2012.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, 
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that 
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for 
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 20, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT 
on April 2, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06800 Filed 3-20-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) TIP Development 

Source Specific Emission Limitations & Standards 

Technical Support Document 

Section VII. Rule E - Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing 

(I) Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing 

(2) Concrete Batch Plants 

(3) Hot Mix Asphalt Plants 

(4) Vermiculite and Perlite Processing 

1.0 Introduction & Source Description 

Nonmetallic mineral mining and processing is a general source category including one or more 

of the following components: 

Sand and gravel mining and processing (including crushed stone processing) 

Concrete batching 

Hot mix asphalt production 

Vermiculite 1 perlite processing 

Because of common raw materials, processing equipment, emission mechanisms, and control 

techniques, a single emission standard is proposed for nonmetallic mineral mining and 

processing with subsections to address specific processes as identified above. Several facilities 

currently located and operating on GRIC land comprise this source category, All subcategories 

are currently represented and expected to be potential candidates for expansion and/or future new 

source siting. 

1.1 Sand and Gravel 

Deposits of sand and gravel are generally found in near surface alluvial deposits and in 

subterranean and sub aqueous beds. Such deposits are common on GRIC Land. Sand and gravel 

are typically mined in a moist or wet condition by open pit excavation or by dredging. Open pit 

excavation is carried out with power shovels, draglines, front-end loaders, and bucket wheel 

excavators. Mining by dredging involves mounting the equipment on boats or barges and 

removing the sand and gravel from the bottom of the body of water by suction or bucket-type 

dredges. After mining, the materials are transported to the processing plant by suction pump, 

earthmover, truck, belt conveyors, or other means. 

Sand and gravel may be used for fill, bedding, sub base, and base course without processing, but 

all current GRIC facilities include Mer processing for concrete and or asphalt production. The 

processing of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different combinations of 

washers, screens, and classifiers to segregate particle sizes; crushers to reduce oversized 

material; and storage and loading facilities. A process flow diagram for construction sand and 

gravel processing is included in Appendix A of this document. 

NMMProc TSD 6-14-02 Created on 6/18/2002 9:39:00 AM 1
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 10.28
                           OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                 2000 STOCK PLAN

                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

     Oplink Communications, Inc. (the "Company") hereby grants an option to
purchase Shares of its Common Stock to the optionee named below on the terms and
conditions set forth in this cover sheet and the Company's 2000 Stock Plan
attached hereto (together, the "Stock Option Agreement"):

     Grant Number:                           200001027

     Optionee ID:                            1505

     Date of Grant:                          1l/7/2001

     Vesting Commencement Date:              1l/5/2001

     Exercise Price Per Share:               $1.25

     Total Number of Shares Granted:         500,000

     Type of Option:                         Incentive Stock Option

     Expiration Date:                        11/7/2011

Exercise Schedule:

     The option granted hereunder may be exercised, in whole or in part, based
on the vesting schedule as set forth below.

     Twenty-five percent (25%) of the Option shall vest on the one year
anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date and an additional l/48th of the
Option shall vest at the end of each full month thereafter, provided, however,
In the event of a "Change of Control" (based on the definition set forth in that
certain Employment Offer Letter dated October 26, 2001, by and between you and
the Company (the "Employment Offer Letter")) or if you are terminated without a
"Cause" (as defined in the Employment Offer Letter) within the first year of
your employment with the Company, the vesting of one-fourth ( 1/4th) of your
Option shall be accelerated immediately upon the Closing of the Change of
Control or Termination without cause.

     By signing this cover sheet, you agree that this Stock Option Agreement is
subject to the terms and conditions of this cover sheet and the 2000 Stock Plan
which is attached hereto and made a part of this document.

OPTIONEE:                             Oplink Communications, Inc.
                                      A Delaware corporation


/s/ Christian A Lepiane           By: /s/ Frederick Fromm
-----------------------------         --------------------------------------
Christian A Lepiane                   Mr. Frederick Fromm, President and CEO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Ponce, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 593]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 19, 2001 *(People v Ponce,*288 AD2d 401 [2001]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 13, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Prudenti, P.J., Altman, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24.8

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher
Kirk and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, 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 each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/ JEFFREY M. HELLERJeffrey M. Heller
| |  | --------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 23
   (1) Registration Statement No. 333-140206 on Form S-8,(2) Registration Statement No. 333-136272 on Form S-3,(3) Registration Statement No. 333-130130 on Form S-3,(4) Registration Statement No. 333-130131 on Form S-3,(5) Registration Statement No. 333-130132 on Form S-3,(5) Registration Statement No. 333-130133 on Form S-3,(6) Registration Statement No. 333-130134 on Form S-3,(7) Registration Statement No. 333-127796 on Form S-3,(8) Registration Statement No. 333-127795 on Form S-3,(9) Registration Statement No. 333-125830 on Form S-8,(10) Registration Statement No. 333-121523 on Form S-3,(11) Registration Statement No. 333-120952 on Form S-3,(12) Registration Statement No. 333-120347 on Form S-8,(13) Registration Statement No. 333-115098 on Form S-8,(14) Registration Statement No. 333-115055 on Form S-3,(15) Registration Statement No. 333-98745 on Form S-8,(16) Registration Statement No. 333-46618 on Form S-8,(17) Registration Statement No. 333-73451 on Form S-8,(18) Registration Statement No. 333-68373 on Form S-8,(19) Registration Statement No. 333-57583 on Form S-8, and(20) Registration Statement No. 333-25757 on Form S-8.
Docket #: DOT

- OST

- 2011

- 0119

Legal sponsor: Brown County/ Austin

Straubel International Airport
DUNS: 068320811 Congressional District Code: WI

- 8

Contact: Thomas Miller , Airport Director 2077 Airport Drive, Suite 18 Green Bay, WI 54313

- 5596 (920) 498

- 4800 miller_tw@co.brown.wi.us

August 2, 2011 

# A USTIN 

# S TRAUBEL 

# I NTERNATIONAL 

# A IRPORT 

# P ROPOSAL UNDER

THE 

# S MALL 

# C OMMUNITY 

# A IR 

# S ERVICE 

# D EVELOPMENT 

# P ROGRAM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00520-CV

Alexander MOLINA and Laura Molina,

Appellants

v.

STONEGATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV03741

Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellants Alexander Molina and Laura 

Molina in relation to this appeal because they qualify as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20. 

SIGNED November 23, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### Robert Gulotta, Respondent, *v.*Fifth Avenue Coach Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 23, 1937.

*Henry J. Smith*[J. *M. Sheen*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Sol Silverman,*for the respondent.

*102Per Curiam.

While it was proper, and so conceded by defendant’s counsel, to ask the plaintiff whether he had told defendant’s driver after the accident that he, the plaintiff, had not been hurt as a result of the collision, the ruling permitting the conversation between plaintiff and the driver to establish defendant’s liability presents reversible error.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Levy and Frankenthaler, JJ.
# C_2015231EN.01000101.xml

| 15.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7620 — FAM/Fanopi/Nefab)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 231/01)

On 6 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 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 32015M7620. 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 32015M7620. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 21.1

IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc.

2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

(as
of March 31, 2007)



|                                                  |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary                                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Impsat S.A.                                       |  | Argentina                    
|                                                  | 
|Impsat S.A.                                       |  | Colombia                     
|                                                  | 
|Deason Investment S.A.                            |  | Uruguay                      
|                                                  | 
|Corlew Investment S.A.                            |  | Uruguay                      
|                                                  | 
|Telecomunicaciones ImpSat S.A.                    |  | Venezuela                    
|                                                  | 
|ImpSatel del Ecuador S.A.                         |  | Ecuador                      
|                                                  | 
|ImpSat USA, Inc.                                  |  | United States (Delaware)     
|                                                  | 
|Impsat Comunicações Ltda.                         |  | Brazil                       
|                                                  | 
|Impsat Participações e Comercial Ltda.            |  | Brazil                       
|                                                  | 
|ImpSat Peru S.A.                                  |  | Peru                         
|                                                  | 
|ImpSat Chile S.A.                                 |  | Chile                        
|                                                  | 
|International Satellite Communications Holding ag |  | Liechtenstein
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANDRE SANTONIO HILL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-4176

[March 9, 2016]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562003CF002458A.

Andre Santonio Hill, Mayo, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina 

Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Andre Hill appeals the trial court’s order striking his rule 

3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The court found that it lacked 

jurisdiction to consider the motion due to appellant’s pending appeal from 

the denial of a related claim in a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction 

relief. We affirm.

We also find that appellant’s claim is meritless. Robbery with a deadly 

weapon is a first degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. § 

812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). The trial court was required to impose a 

life sentence under the prison releasee reoffender statute. See § 

775.082(9)(a)3.a., Fla. Stat. (2003); McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605, 

612-13 (Fla. 2007).

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
2

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARY J. CHURLICK, EXECUTRIX OF 

THE ESTATE OF MARY J. YOHN, 

DECEASED,

Respondent

v.

MANOR CARE OF CARLISLE PA, LLC, 

D/B/A , MANORCARE HEALTH 

SERVICE, CARLISLE, AND HCR MANOR 

CARE, INCL, MANORCARE INC., HCR 

HEALTHCARE LLC, HCR HEALTHCARE 

II, III, AND IV, LLC.,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 506 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 1108

MDA 2015 entered on June 28, 2016,

affirming the Order Entered of the

Cumberland County Court of Common

Pleas at No. 12-7476 entered on

September 6, 2013

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: December 1, 2016

AND NOW, this 1

st day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with our holding in 

Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., ____ A.3d ____, 2016 WL 5630669 (filed 

Sept. 28, 2016).
CAPHRA Meet ing with EPA November 7, 2013 , 1 1 :00 a m Potomac Yard South

- 9100

Meeting Summary

The Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA) provided individuals from the Office of Pesticide Program’s (OPP) Health Effects Division (HED) and
Pesticide Re

- evaluation Divison (PRD), as well as Office of Research and Development (ORD)
staff with an update on their efforts to develop data to address age

- dependent sensitivity to pyrethroids. CAPHRA is working towards presenting their research at a SAP sometime next

year.

List of Participants

EPA Dana Friedman (PRD), William Irwin (HED), Anna Lowit (HED), Marquea King (HED), Ed Scollon (EFED), Christina Swartz (HED), Mike Metzger (HED), Cathryn Britton (PRD), Garland Waleko (PRD) ; by phone: Tim Shafer (ORD), Kevin Crofton (ORD)

CAPHRA Larry Sheets (Bayer CropScience), Tom Osimitz (Science Strategies), John Clark (University of Massachusetts), Steve Symington (Salve Regina), Nasser Assaf ( Valent ), Derek Gammon ( FMC ) , M onty Eb erhart ( Bayer ), Moire Creek (Valent), Matt Brooks (Agchem Consulting for LG), Jan Sharp (MGK),
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STEPHEN DEAN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-56742

D.C . No. 5:14-c v-01240-VAP-SP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, NOONAN, a n d PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ste phe n De an a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for re turn of prope rty unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 41(g). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED OCT 24 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Unde r R ule 41(g), a

distric t c ourt m ay

e xe rc ise its e quita

ble jurisdic tion to gran t a m otion for there t

urn of prope rty

by a “ pe rson a ggrie ve d by

an unla wful
se arc h a nd se izure of prope rty

or by the de priva

tion of prope rty .” Fe d. R . C rim . P. 41(g). W he re , a s he re , the re are no c rim ina l proc e e dings pe nding a ga inst the
m ova nt, “ a distric t c ourt m

u st e xe rc ise c a

ution a nd re stra int be fore a ssum ing jurisdic tion.” Ramsde n v . Unite d State s , 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th C ir. 1993) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). This c ourt re vie ws a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision whe the r to e xe rc ise its e quita ble jurisdic t ion unde r R

ule 41(g) for a

n a buse o f disc re tion. Id. W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de c line d to e xe rc ise e quita ble jurisdic tion ove r De an’ s m otion. De an did not
e sta blish tha t the four Ramsde n fa c tors we ighe d in his fa vor, a s re quire d for the distric t c o urt to a ssum e jurisdic tion ove r a pre -indic tm e nt R

ule 41(g) m otion. W e AFFIRM the distric t c ourt’ s orde r without pre judic e to De an re ne wing his R ule 41(g) m otion on the ba sis tha t ne arly thre e y e ars ha

ve pa s se d sinc e the gove rnm e nt se iz e d the prope rty in que stion. 1

1 De an’ s unoppose d re que st for judic ia l notic e is gra n te d. S e e Fe d. R
. Evid. 201(b)(2). 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

RANDY ARLAN MAINWARING,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 30084

D.C. No. 6:09

- cr

- 60105

- MC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER

, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

Randy Arlan Mainwaring appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 28

- month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mainwaring contends that his sentence is substantively u nreasonabl e

. The

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 30084

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mainwaring ’s sentence. See

Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above

- Guidelines sentence is

substantively reaso nable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e ) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including Mainwaring ’s repeated breaches of the

court’s trust and his unsuitability for supervised release

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ;

United States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062

- 63 (9th Cir. 2007 )

.

AFFIRMED

.