alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016155EN.01000102.xml

| 30.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7951 — Shire/Baxalta)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 155/02)

On 26 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 32016M7951. 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 32016M7951. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 23, 2016

a1116

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

154369 & (49)(51)

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

MACHINES CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154369

COA: 327359

Court of Claims: 11-000033-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The motion to strike the notice of intervention is considered, and it is GRANTED. There 

is no justiciable controversy because the losing party below did not file an application for 

leave to appeal and the Attorney General does not represent an aggrieved party. 

Federated Ins Co v Oakland County Rd Comm, 475 Mich 286 (2006). The application 

for leave to appeal is DISMISSED.
#### Ondea Brantley, Appellant-Respondent, v Anthony R. Caliano, Respondent-Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 669]

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Edward A. Rath, Jr., J.), entered June 28, 2002. The judgment dismissed the complaint, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left knee, which she allegedly sustained when defendant’s vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which she was a passenger. She appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant based upon a jury verdict finding that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The contention of plaintiff that Supreme Court committed reversible error in precluding her from presenting proof that her thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) was not a cause of her cervical neck pain is without merit. Although the court initially rejected plaintiffs offer of proof on that point, when it later provided plaintiff an opportunity to make the offer of proof, counsel withdrew the offer *(see generally Weissman v New York Tel. Co.,*178 AD2d 353, 354 [1991], *lv denied*80 NY2d 753 [1992]). In any event, any error is harmless in light of the extensive testimony of plaintiffs neurosurgeon on how he ruled out TOS as the cause of plaintiff’s cervical pain *(see Stemmer v Stemmer,*182 AD2d 1120, 1121 [1992]). Contrary to the further contention of *1090plaintiff, the jury’s finding that she did not sustain a serious injury is not against the weight of the evidence. “The conflicting medical opinions of the experts for plaintiff! ] and defendant raised issues of credibility for the jury to determine” *(Tanner v Tundo,*309 AD2d 1244, 1244 [2003]; *see Buck v Fulton City School Dist.,*307 AD2d 745 [2003]), and we see no reason to disturb the jury’s resolution of those credibility issues *(see Kalpakis v County of Nassau,*289 AD2d 453, 454 [2001]). Finally, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the objections of defendant’s attorney during the trial were so groundless or disruptive that they amounted to egregious misconduct that precluded the jury from properly resolving the issues in the case *(cf. Kennedy v Children’s Hosp. of Buffalo*[appeal No. 3], 288 AD2d 918 [2001]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.
# C_2016011EN.01000201.xml

| 14.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/2

---

Call for proposals for the establishment of Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

(2016/C 11/02)

In conformity with Regulation (EC) No 1292/2013 of 11 December 2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs).

Proposals are invited for the following call. The call deadline and all relevant information are given in the call text, which is published on the EIT website.

Call Identifier: EIT-KICS-2016.

EIT-KICS-2016

Priority areas addressed by the call: EIT Food (food4future: sustainable supply chain from resources to consumers), and EIT Manufacturing (added-value manufacturing).

Information on the modalities of the call, the evaluation criteria and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the KICs Call page of the EIT website: http://eit.europa.eu/collaborate/2016-call-for-kics

---
p130839.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0839 

Focus Ready Draft 9/5/2013

ENGINEER: Macek \ JAS 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE:

OTHER USES:

 

TLV/PEL:

None established. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130839.eng

 

SAT (concerns) (08/27/2013):

Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: 

Ecotox Related Cases:

 // Human Health Related Cases: 

Migration to groundwater: Moderate 

PBT rating: P3B1T1 .

Health: 1-2 Drinking Water, Inhalation 

Eco: 3 No releases to Water 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0839 

Page 2
p130839.eng

PROC: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 1 

unknown site(s) 

Days/yr: 333

Basis:

Process Description: 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 0

Basis: 

Inhalation:

Dermal:

Page 3
p130839.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: Yes

PMN: 13-0839 

USE: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 

unknown site(s) 

Page 4
p130839.eng

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with 

daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

Incineration or Landfill

Output 2: 8.3E+0 kg/site-day over 240 days/yr from 

 

RELEASE TOTAL

2.0E+4 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis: 

Inhalation:

Dermal:

Page 5
p130839.eng



 

 

 

 

 

Page 6
p130839.eng

 

 

 

Page 7
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5070 September Term, 2019 1: 20-cv -001 54-UNA Filed O n: August 13, 20 20 Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner,

App ellant
v . United Sta tes o f

Am erica, App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Rogers and Grif f ith, Circuit Ju dges, a nd Sen telle, Sen ior Circuit Judge J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s March 9, 2 020 orde r, dism issing appe llant’s co mp laint withoutpreju dice, be af f irmed . T he district cou rt correctly conclude d th at t he com plaintfailed to se t ou t “a sh ort a nd plain state me nt o f the claim sho w ing that[ap pellan t] is e ntitled to relief .” Fed . R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461*et seq.*) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 24, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

                    1.                     *First Mutual Holding Company,*                     Lakewood, Ohio; to reorganize into a MHC structure, and thereby acquire First Federal Saving and Loan Association of Lakewood, Lakewood, Ohio, in connection with the thrift's conversion from mutual to stock form.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 26, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-07294 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


                           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 Firearms Training Systems, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment Number 2) for the period ended March 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ronavan Mohling, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.


                                             /s/ Ronavan Mohling
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Ronavan Mohling
                                             Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             November 6, 2002
Order entered November 30, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00298-CR

MONTRANCE TYRONE ROBERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-51843-N

ORDER

On November 8, 2016, we entered an order that court reporter Sandra Hughes not sit until 

she filed a supplemental reporter’s record containing exhibits missing from the reporter’s record 

she filed in this appeal on October 12, 2016. Because the supplemental reporter’s record has 

now been filed, we VACATE that portion of our November 8, 2016 order that orders Sandra 

Hughes not to sit. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit copies of this order to the Honorable Fred Tinsley, 

Presiding Judge, 195th Judicial District Court; Sandra Hughes, Official Court Reporter, 195th 

Judicial District Court; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2704 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide relief from 

surcharges to small businesses and nonprofit organizations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 10, 2021 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mrs. HYDE-SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 

provide relief from surcharges to small businesses and 

nonprofit organizations. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Sur5 charge Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM SURCHARGE. 

7 Section 1308A(a) of the National Flood Insurance 

8 Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015a(a)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2704 IS

1 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘The Ad2 ministrator’’ and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para4 graph (2), the Administrator’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(2) RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND

7 NONPROFITS.— 

8 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the 

9 term ‘covered small business or nonprofit orga10 nization’ means a small business concern (as 

11 defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act 

12 (15 U.S.C. 632)) or an organization that is de13 scribed in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Rev14 enue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation 

15 under section 501(a) of such Code that owns 

16 not fewer than 3 structures that are located on 

17 a single property. 

18 ‘‘(B) RELIEF.—The Administrator may 

19 not impose a surcharge under this section for a 

20 policy for flood insurance coverage under the 

21 National Flood Insurance Program for a cov22 ered small business concern or nonprofit organi23 zation with respect to more than 2 detached 

24 units or buildings located on a single property 

25 if the covered small business or nonprofit orgaVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:32 Aug 12, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2704.IS S2704

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2704 IS

1 nization certifies to the Administrator that the 

2 savings from the surcharge not being imposed 

3 shall be used for flood mitigation on the prop4 erty on which the units or buildings are lo5 cated.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 23, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-1435

Lower Tribunal No. 16-2619

________________

Aligned Bayshore Marina, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

American Watersports Coconut Grove, LLC,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Eric William Hendon, Judge.

Keller & Bolz and John W. Keller, III, for appellant.

Heller Waldman and Glen H. Waldman and Michael A. Sayre, for appellee.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Aligned Bayshore Marina, LLC, appeals the trial court’s entry of a

temporary injunction in this dispute involving the extent of a tenant’s rights under
a long-term lease. The trial court’s order attempted to maintain the status quo

between the parties, pending further resolution of the matter. However, the order

is, in fact, a temporary injunction and does not satisfy the requirements of Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Therefore, we quash the order and remand for

further proceedings. 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, Injunctions, specifies that “[n]o

temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an

amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages

sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.” 

1.610(b). That Rule further requires that every injunction shall specify the reasons

for its entry. 1.610(c). The order in this case does not comply with either

requirement. Meinstein v. Travel Etc., Inc., 442 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 

The order on appeal fails to specify the reasons for its entry. Indust. Waste

Servs., Inc. v. Faircloth Sanitation, Inc., 643 So. 2d 688 (Fla 3d DCA 1988). 

While the order states that it is being entered “to maintain the status quo as

currently prevailing,” this is insufficient, because that is the general function of

every temporary injunction. City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Temple B’Nai Zion,

Inc., 43 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Morgan v. Herff Jones, Inc., 883 So. 2d

309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Clear, definite and unequivocally sufficient factual

findings must justify a preliminary injunction. City of Sunny Isles, 43 So. 3d at

2
906, and 906 n.2 (reiterating that to obtain a temporary injunction a party must

establish irreparable harm; no adequate remedy available at law; substantial

likelihood of success of the merits; injunction will serve public interest). 

Also fatal to the order is the failure to require the posting of a bond. This

requirement is mandatory under Rule 1.610(b). CJM Partners, LLC v. Di Giacomo,

187 So.3d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Diaz v. John Adcock Ins. Agency, Inc., 729

So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Meinstein.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and remanded for dissolution of the

temporary injunction.

3
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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 ending
      September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
      LaserLock Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Normal A. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  The
      Report fully complied 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 results of operation of the Company.





November
      10, 2006





/s/
      Norman Gardner





Norman
      A.
      Gardner


Chief
      Executive Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer





This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
      and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Explanatory
      Note: The same individual serves as chief executive (principal) officer and
      principal financial officer. Accordingly, there are no other individuals who
      are
“other certifying officers” referred to in this certification.