alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016037EN.01000102.xml

| 30.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7833 — CDC International Capital/Mubadala Development Company/Vivalto Bel/Group Vivalto Santé)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 37/02)

On 14 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 French 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 32015M7833. 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 32015M7833. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016207EN.01000102.xml

| 10.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7968 — EQT Services UK/Kuoni Travel Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 207/02)

On 22 April 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 32016M7968. 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 32016M7968. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
#### Brant and others vs. Salisbury.

Where exceptions are taken to the conclusions of *law*only, and not to the facts found by the judge, the finding of facts cannot be reviewed in this court.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Rode,*County.

The defendant appealed from a judgment for the plaintiffs.

*JToggle dé Castle,*for appellant.

*Todd &*Converse, for respondents.

DixoN, C. J.

This cause was tried by the court without a jury, the same having been waived by consent of parties. The exceptions are to the conclusions of law only, and not to the facts found by the judge. The facts found sustain the conclusions of law; and the question is, whether, upon such exceptions, the finding of facts can be reviewed in this court. We are of opinion that it cannot. The statute provides that in cases where, any issue of fact is tried by the court, either party, for the purposes of an appeal, may, within ten days, etc., file with the clerk written exceptions to the facts found by the judge who tried the cause, or to his conclusions of law thereon, or both, or to any of them, and may, in case of an appeal or writ of error brought upon the judgment rendered on such decision, incorporate such written exceptions into the bill of exceptions settled in the case. Laws of 1860, ch. 264, § 13. It is obvious from these provisions, that the method of reviewing the finding of facts is by exceptions- to the facts found, and that where there are no such exceptions, there can be no review. We cannot, on exceptions to the conclusions of law, go behind the facts found, and examine the testimony to ascertain whether they are correctly found or not. The want of an exception to the facts found is an assent to their correctness; and if the conclusions of law are excepted to, the question to be decided is, whether the facts found sustain them.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Cole, J., did not sit in this case.
June Term, 1860.

#### Lane and another vs. White.

Where property was offered fur sale by a sheriff under a judgment of foreclosure, and struck off to a person who bid by the direction of the plaintiff’s attorney, and who showed the sheriff a note from said attorney, stating that the bid was satisfactory to him, and that he would give a receipt to the sheriff for the amount: *Held,*That although the sheriff might have demanded his fees in advance, yet, not having done so, he had no right to disregard the bid, and proceed to re-sell the property, because such bidder was not prepared at the moment to pay his fees and disbursements.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Fond du Lac*County.

This was an appeal from an order of .confirmation of a sheriff's sale of land under a judgment of foreclosure. Tbe objections made to tbe confirmation, are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

*R. P.*Eaton, for tbe appellants,

contended that tbe sheriff was.bound by bis instructions as to tbe sale (2 Paige, 99 ; 3 id., 339; 11 Wend., 329-331); and baying been duly informed that tbe plaintiffs were satisfied with tbe sale to Loomis, bad no right to ignore that sale and re-sell at a sacrifice, before 'giving tbe plaintiffs’ attorney notice, and time to pay bis costs, 9 Paige, 2S9 ; 13 Wend., 226.

*M. S.*Bragg, *contra.*

July 30.

*By the*Court,

PAINE, J.

We think the order of confirmation appealed from must be reversed. It appears from tbe affidavits that tbe property was struck off to one Loomis, who bid by tbe directions of tbe plaintiffs’ attorney, and who gave a letter to the sheriff from tbe attorney, to tbe effect that this bid was satisfactory to tbe plaintiffs, and that they would receipt tbe debt to him thereon. But Loomis not being prepared to pay tbe amount of the sheriff’s fees and *382disbursements in cash, the latter disregarded the bid, offered the property again for sale, and sold it for the exact amount 0f p^g fees an¿ disbursements, being about one-third of the previous bid. This we think he had no right to do. The sheriff has no power to control the proceedings in executing a judgment, as against the solicitor of the plaintiff, merely for the sake of obtaining the immediate payment of his fees. He may demand his fees in advance, if he chooses, but if he does not do that, but proceeds to sell, and strikes off the property to a person bidding for the benefit of the plaintiff', he has no right, merely because such pers'on is not prepared to pay his fees at the moment, to disregard the sale and sell the property over again. It is obvious that the interests of both the plaintiffs and defendants might be sacrificed, as they were here, by allowing the sheriff to take such a course.

The order must be reversed, with costs.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Berwick Township :

:

v. : No. 461 C.D. 2016

:

Robert F. O'Brien, Linda A. O'Brien, :

Robert F. O'Brien, Jr., and Lydia A. :

O'Brien, :

Appellants :

O R D E R

NOW, November 30, 2016, upon consideration of appellants’

application for reargument en banc and appellee’s answer in response thereto, 

the application is denied.

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6951

KENNETH RIVERA, a/k/a Kenneth Syncere Rivera, a/k/a Kenneth 

D. Rivera,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director; WARDEN MR. MCKIE; CORPORAL 

CHAPPEL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (8:15-cv-02135-JMC)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Rivera, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Rivera appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Rivera v. Stirling, 

No. 8:15-cv-02135-JMC (D.S.C. June 20, 2016). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015308EN.01000301.xml

| 18.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 308/04)

Image

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

1

2

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

Issuing country
  : Italy

Issuing country

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

Subject of commemoration

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

Description of the design

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

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : November 2015

Date of issue

---

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

1

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

2

---
Order entered September 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00029-CR

JORGE LUIS ALEJANDRO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-58523-L

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On July 30, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is represented by court-appointed counsel J. Daniel Oliphant; (3) Mr. 

Oliphant’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) Mr. 

Oliphant will file appellant’s brief by October 3, 2014.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by OCTOBER 3, 2014. Because appellant’s brief 

is already five months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If the brief is not filed by 

the date specified, the Court will utilize the available remedies to obtain appellant’s brief.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit
13.2




CARTHEW
BAY 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 Annual Report of Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Brian D. Clewes, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/
      Brian D. ClewesBrian
      D. ClewesSecretary,
      Treasurer, and Chief Financial OfficerSeptember
      15, 2010
JAVONNE TERRELL MURPHY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2237

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John T. Brown, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2842 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Defense 

from requiring that members of the Armed Forces receive a COVID– 

19 vaccine, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Defense from requiring that members of the 

Armed Forces receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Respecting Our Ser5 vicemembers Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2842 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COVID–19 VACCINATION REQUIRE2 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 55 of title 10, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1110b 

6 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 1110c. Prohibition on COVID–19 vaccination re8 quirement 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may 

10 not require any member of an Armed Force to receive a 

11 vaccine with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 

12 (COVID–19). 

13 ‘‘(b) MEMBER OF AN ARMED FORCE DEFINED.—In 

14 this section the term ‘member of an Armed Force’ means 

15 a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, 

16 Coast Guard, or Space Force, including any member of 

17 a reserve component thereof on active service or active sta18 tus.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 at the beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended 

21 by inserting after the item relating to section 1110b the 

22 following new item: 

‘‘1110c. Prohibition on COVID–19 vaccination requirement.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016188EN.01000201.xml

| 27.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 May 2016

(2016/C 188/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1168 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4367 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,75970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2870 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1075 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2470 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,023 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,39 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4108 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5070 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2744 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5481 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4443 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6730 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6591 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5381 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 317,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,4165 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3237 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4951 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 192,39 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5435 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,131 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,7420 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,758 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0004 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5139 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,9155 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1168

JPY

Japanese yen

122,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4367

GBP

Pound sterling

0,75970

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2870

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1075

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2470

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,023

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,39

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4108

RON

Romanian leu

4,5070

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2744

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5481

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4443

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6730

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6591

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5381

KRW

South Korean won

1 317,87

ZAR

South African rand

17,4165

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3237

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4951

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 192,39

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5435

PHP

Philippine peso

52,131

RUB

Russian rouble

72,7420

THB

Thai baht

39,758

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0004

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5139

INR

Indian rupee

74,9155

---

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

1

Source

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SOHU.COM
FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          23,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                        75
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,854
<PP&E>                                           3,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                     510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           43,819
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                         806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,219
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,330
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.69)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF

C.R.A.,

A JUVENILE

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00143-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

§

Of Denton County, Texas

§

(TC# JV-2014-00158)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. It appearing to this Court that 

Appellant is indigent, we make no further order as to payment of costs on appeal. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

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

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.