alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Caspar W. Hodgson, Plaintiff, *v.*News Syndicate Co., Inc., Sued Herein as New York News Syndicate, Inc., Defendant.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 22, 1937.

*Solomon B. Kunkis,*for the plaintiff.

*Townley, Updike & Carter,*for the defendant.

*

 Affd., 253 App. Div. 808.

Laxter, J.

This is a motion by a defendant in a libel action to examine the plaintiff before trial on the separate defenses. The plaintiff is almost seventy years old. The custom appears to have grown up in recent years of including in defenses of “ fair report judicial proceedings,” or fair comment on them, matters which are not pertinent to the alleged libel. The effect of the method is to aggravate and broaden the charge which forms the basis of the libel by adding to it under cover of the answer, and thus many matters not included in the original publication are brought into the case.

The complaint alleges and the answer denies falsity. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. While the court; in its discretion, may compel the examination of a party, though he carry the burden, in this case the examination does not appear either proper or neces*883sary, and the court is disinclined to exercise its discretion for the examination sought.

All the other matters on which the examination is sought are matters of public record, which the defendant may prove without the aid of an examination. The purpose of this procedure must not be lost sight of, and, although the courts may *(Albanos*v. *News Syndicate Co., Inc.,*130 Misc. 566) permit a party to be interrogated to establish matters of public record, the better practice is to withhold the privilege. His evidence is at best hearsay and secondary. The motion is denied.
# C_2015067EN.01000101.xml

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7500 — Bain Capital/Ibstock Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 67/01)

On 4 February 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 32015M7500. 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 32015M7500. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016119EN.01000201.xml

| 5.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7737 — Honeywell/Elster)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 119/03)

On 21 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32015M7737. 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 32015M7737. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2015341EN.01000901.xml

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 October 2015

(2015/C 341/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1439 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4612 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3274 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0873 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2170 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,084 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,39 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2291 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4176 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2975 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5612 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4756 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8652 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6683 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5752 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 282,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9957 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2583 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6200 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 389,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7166 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,341 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,0735 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,217 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3425 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7577 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,1533 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1439

JPY

Japanese yen

135,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4612

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73970

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3274

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0873

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2170

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,084

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,39

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2291

RON

Romanian leu

4,4176

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2975

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5612

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4756

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8652

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6683

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5752

KRW

South Korean won

1 282,89

ZAR

South African rand

14,9957

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2583

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6200

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 389,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7166

PHP

Philippine peso

52,341

RUB

Russian rouble

71,0735

THB

Thai baht

40,217

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3425

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7577

INR

Indian rupee

74,1533

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
1

Filed 7/7/16 P. v. Scott CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DUSTIN LEE COLE SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

C080986

(Super. Ct. No. 15F5675)

Appointed counsel for defendant Dustin Lee Cole Scott asked this court to review 

the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
2

I

Defendant argued with his live-in girlfriend on September 12, 2015. During the 

argument he hit her three or four times in the head with an open hand, knocked her to the 

floor, and kicked her in the stomach and hand. Their two-year-old son was present 

during the attack.

Defendant pleaded guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant with a prior 

domestic violence conviction. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subds. (a), (f).) He also admitted 

a prior strike conviction and three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 

1170.12). The plea agreement provided that if the trial court granted defendant’s 

Romero1 request to dismiss the prior strike conviction, defendant would be sentenced 

to a suspended seven-year term and placed on probation; but if the Romero request was 

denied, the prison priors would be stricken and he would be sentenced to a four-year state 

prison term. The trial court denied the Romero request, sentenced defendant to four years 

in prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 188 days of presentence credit 

(94 actual and 94 conduct).

Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of 

the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. 

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

 

1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /S/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

 /S/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

 /S/

NICHOLSON, J.
---

---

EXHIBIT 14.1

Consent
of Somekh Chaikin  member firm of KPMG International

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of DirectorsTop Image Systems LtdTel AvivIsrael

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements of Top Image Systems Ltd. on Form S-8, File No.
333-101990, and File No. 333-11560 and on Form F-1 No. 333-119885 of our report dated
March 11, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2002, which
appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Top Image Systems Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

Somekh Chaikin Certified Public
Accountants(Isr.) (A member firm of KPMG International)

Tel Aviv, Israel March 31, 2004



---

---
AAM-12-167-E 

April 5, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10495 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0257 

Mr. Bruce Armand Coulombe 

Wings Over Kauai, LLC 

3764 Kikee Road 

Kalaheo, HI 96741 

Dear Mr. Coulombe: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 8, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Wings Over Kauai, LLC (WOK) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow WOK to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to WOK. 

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 
2 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two drug and alcohol separate 

testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Wings Over Kauai, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 

120 to the extent necessary to allow WOK to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one 

drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of WOK are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the WOK part 135 operation, not under part 91 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
# C_2016172EN.01000101.xml

| 13.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7861 — Dell/EMC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 172/01)

On 29 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 32016M7861. 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 32016M7861. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016039EN.01000102.xml

| 2.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7845 — HCL Technologies Sweden/Volvo IT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 39/02)

On 27 January 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 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 32016M7845. 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 32016M7845. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2015320EN.01000101.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 320/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 311, 21.9.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 302, 14.9.2015

OJ C 294, 7.9.2015

OJ C 279, 24.8.2015

OJ C 270, 17.8.2015

OJ C 262, 10.8.2015

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Exhibit 4.1


 


Codere
Online Luxembourg, S.A.


Société
anonyme


Registered
office: 7, rue Robert Stümper


L-2557
Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg


R.C.S.
Luxembourg: B 255798


(the
“Company”)


 


Certificate
n°


 


date


 


This
is to certify that, as of the date of the present certificate,
[Name of the shareholder] is registered in the register of shares of Codere Online Luxembourg, S.A., a société
anonyme incorporated under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for an unlimited period of time on 4 June 2021 pursuant to a
notarial deed of Maître Martine Schaeffer, notary public residing in Luxembourg, published in the Recueil Electronique des Sociétés
et Associations (RESA) on 16 June 2021 under number RESA_2021_128.670, and registered with the Luxembourg register of commerce and
companies under number B 255798, as the registered holder of [Number of shares] registered shares, in the capital of the Company,
all fully paid and with a nominal value of one euro (EUR 1.-) each, numbered as follows:


 


		●	From
                                            [...] to [...].



This
certificate is evidence of registration in the share register only and is not a document of title. Entitlements are determined by the
share register and title to the shares represented by this certificate shall pass by registration in the share register and in accordance
with the applicable legal provisions.


 


The
present certificate is established in accordance with the provisions of article 430-4 of the Luxembourg law of 10 August 1915 on commercial
companies, as amended from time to time.


 


This
certificate assures his owner, as registered in the register of shares of the Company, of any rights which, pursuant to the articles
of association of the Company, are attached to the ownership of the shares of the Company. It may be exchanged at any moment at the registered
office of the Company or at the places designated by it against other certificates representing in total the same number of shares.


 


By
its duly authorised signatory


 


 





 






Name:


Title:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN DR E A V I L L A B E L L O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 75947 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 306- 083 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A ndr e aV i l l aB e l l o, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order s um m ar i l y di sm i ss i ng her app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f or c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS05- 75947 2 re vi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on of cont i nu ou s physi ca l p r e s e n c e . L an di n-Zavala v. G on zales , 4 8 8 F .3 d1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e d e n yi n p artan dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s det erm i nat i on thatB el l o w as ordered expedi t i ou sl y r em ov ed i n 1 99 8 u nd erthe nam e T here saM art i nez L op ez , w hi c h s he c onc e de d w a s he ra l i a s , and thatB e l l o the r e f or e di d notm e e tthe c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e r e q u ir e m e n t f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See Juarez -R am os v. G on zales , 48 5 F . 3d 50 9, 51 1-12 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( ho l di ng thatan e xpe di t e d r e m ova l or de ri nt e rrupt s an a l i e n’ s c ont i nuous phy s i c a l pr e s e nc e f or ca n ce ll atio n p u rp o se s) . S ub stan ti al ev id en ce also su p p o rts th e a g en cy ’s det erm i nat i on thatB el l o h ad no tac crued t en ye ar s of c on t i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence a t th e tim e s h e w a s s e rv e dw ith th e N o tic e to A p p e ar( “N T A ” ) in A p r il 2 0 0 2 . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (d)( 1). W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew B el l o’ s c hal l enge t o the IJ ’ s deni alof her r e q u e s t f o rac o n tin u an c e b e c au s e B e llo f a ile dto e x h au s t th is is s u e b e f o r e th e B I A . See B a rr o n v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.05- 75947 3