alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015421EN.01000101.xml

| 17.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7678 — Equinix/Telecity)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 421/01)

On 13 November 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 32015M7678. 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 32015M7678. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

April15, 2013 

Docket Operations M-30 

Jeff LaVoi <lavoij@co.hill.mt.us> 

Monday, AprillS, 2013 11:50 AM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Faulk, Scott (OST); EAS (OST) 

Essential Air 

West Building Ground Floor W 12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington DC 

United States of America 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Secretary 

Washington DC 

RE. Docket DOS_OST-1997-2605 

It would not be in the best interest of the 7 communities being served by Silver Airways in Montana to suspend service 

to Miles City and Lewistown Montana at this time. 

We at Havre, Montana are a part of Essential Air system. Eliminating any community from the service will put all 

communities in jeopardy. With Montana being a large State with few people the need for Essential Air Service is 

critical. We request you look hard at the whole system and the impact it will have on the communities of Montana. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this state wide problem. With time things can be worked out. 

Sincerely 

Jeff LaVoi 

Hill County Commissioner 

Havre, Montana 

1
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 of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren P.
Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 12, 2008           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016214EN.01000101.xml

| 15.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7858 — INEOS/Celanese Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 214/01)

On 11 May 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 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 32016M7858. 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 32016M7858. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
AAM-11-275-E May 2, 2011

Exemption No. 10258 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0396

Mr. Mike Slattery Las Vegas Helicopters, Inc. dba Adventure Air Tours Director of Operations – Chief Pilot 500 East Cheyenne Avenue North Las Vegas, NV 89030

Dear Mr. Slattery:

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 April 14, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Las Vegas Helicopters, Inc. dba Adve nture Air Tours (AAT) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow AAT to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

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 AAT.

The FAA has issued a grant 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 testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two 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 Las Vegas Helicopters, Inc. dba Adventure Air Tours an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Las Vegas Helicopters, Inc. dba Adventure Air Tours 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 auspices of the Las Vegas Helicopters, Inc. dba Adventure Air Tours part 135 operations, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
King Ranch, Inc.Appellant/s Juan Antonio Garcia, Gonzalo

Chapa, Jr., and Carmen S. /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2014

No. 04-13-00605-CV

KING RANCH, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Juan Antonio GARCIA, Gonzalo Chapa, Jr., and Carmen S. Chapa,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-11-51704-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Leave to file Amended Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

Appellant’s Amended Brief is deemed filed as of January 13, 2014.

___________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Atkins vs. Scott.

This court will not reverse a judgment in a cause tried by a jury merely because the weight of the evidence upon a material fact, as it appears in the bill of exceptions, seems to it to be against the verdict, where there was a great conflict of testimony upon the fact; nor where the bill of exceptions does not show that it contains all the material evidence.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Green Lake*County.

Action for goods sold and delivered. Answer, payment. Th'e proof showed that the alleged payment was made in bank certificates of deposit, payable in currency; which were protested for non-payment, the bank having failed. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiffs received the certificates in absolute payment. Verdict for the defendant; motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against law and the evidence, denied ; and the plaintiff appealed.

*A. B.*Hamilton, for appellants.

*J. 0. Truesdell, contra.*

*By the*Court,

Cole, J.

We cannot grant a new trial in this case, although the weight of evidence, as it is returned to this court, would seem to be against the verdict. There is great conflict of testimony upon the point whether the certificates were taken by the plaintiffs in payment of their goods and at their own risk, or not. It was the peculiar province of the jury to decide upon this conflict. They saw the witnesses, their manner of testifying, and could best judge what credit to give their conflicting statements. Besides, the bill of exceptions *137does not state that it contains all the material evidence given on the trial. Under these circumstances, we could not reverse the judgment, even if we thought the weight of evidence, as contained in the bill of exceptions, was in favor of the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Conversation with Mark Repasky , November 8, 2010

Wastewater Technologies (850 - 251 - 7743) What is the cost to upgrade an existing septic s ys tem to a RetroFAST s ys tem? The cost depends on where the s ys tem is located. It’ll cost a lot more if y ou’re instal ling the sy stem in the Florida Key s. For Southern Florida, say , the costs has different components. It’ll cost somewhere in the ballpark of $300 to pump out the existing tank and inspect it. The actual sy stem itself including tax and delivery costs about $1,650. A standard installation will be about $500. It runs about $300 - $400 for the labor (lay the piping etc), and an ywh ere from $0 - $100 to deal with electrical issues. Sometimes there’s just a plug there and it’s eas y. I’d say in general it will cost you about $2,00 - $2,500 total to upgrade an existing sy stem. In the Key s it might be more like $4,500. That doesn’t include a ton of profit for the compan y. Of course for subdivisions, there are economies of scale. Italso depends on the existing sy stem, and whether there’s an electrical box nearb y. Maybe a low - end / high - end cost would be something like $2,500 - $3,500.
#### Titusville, Appellant, *v.*Gahan

(No. 2).

October 7, 1907:

Argued May 20, 1907.

Appeal, No. 144, April T., 1907, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Sept. T., 1906, No. 1, on verdict for defendant on case stated in suit of City of Titusville v. John Gahan.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

The legal question arising in this case is precisely the same as that considered in ante, p. 613.

The judgment is affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

L.W.O.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 20 2 3

- 0883

June 14 , 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan B. Maulucci

, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II

, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen , Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

SLEET , C.J.

, and VILLANTI and KHOUZAM

, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
NUMBER 13-16-00650-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ROBERT PENA AND TRADE CARRIERS, L.L.C.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relators, Robert Pena and Trade Carriers, L.L.C., filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for emergency relief in the above cause on November 30, 2016. 

Through this original proceeding, relators seek to compel the trial court to vacate its 

November 16, 2016 nunc pro tunc order. Through their motion for emergency relief, 

relators seek to stay the trial that is currently set for December 5, 2016. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for emergency relief, 

is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. The motion for emergency relief is 

GRANTED and the trial set for December 5, 2016 is ordered STAYED pending further 
2

order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) 

(“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case 

is finally decided.”). 

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Liliana Perez Garcia, or any 

others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to 

the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of 

this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

1st day of December, 2016.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 26 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the DrugFree Communities Support Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2021 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities 

Support Program the authority to waive the Federal 

fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support 

Program. 

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 ‘‘Drug-Free Commu5 nities Pandemic Relief Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 26 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FEDERAL FUND LIMITATION FOR THE 

2 DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PRO3 GRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), if the 

5 Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support 

6 Program determines that, as a result of the public health 

7 emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) as a result of 

9 COVID–19, an eligible coalition is unable to raise the 

10 amount of non-Federal funds, including in-kind contribu11 tions, agreed to be raised by the coalition for a fiscal year 

12 under an agreement entered into with the Administrator 

13 pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (3) of section 1032(b) 

14 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532(b)), 

15 the Administrator may, notwithstanding such paragraphs, 

16 provide to the eligible coalition the grant or renewal grant, 

17 as applicable, for that fiscal year in an amount— 

18 (1) with respect to an initial grant or renewal 

19 grant described under paragraph (1)(A) or (3)(A) of 

20 such section, that exceeds the amount of non-Fed21 eral funds raised by the eligible coalition, including 

22 in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year; 

23 (2) with respect to a renewal grant described 

24 under paragraph (3)(D)(i) of such section, that ex25 ceeds 125 percent of the amount of non-Federal 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 26 IS

1 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in2 kind contributions, for that fiscal year; and 

3 (3) with respect to a renewal grant described 

4 under paragraph (3)(D)(ii) of such section, that ex5 ceeds 150 percent of the amount of non-Federal 

6 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in7 kind contributions, for that fiscal year. 

8 (b) LIMITATION.—The Administrator may not pro9 vide a grant or renewal grant to an eligible coalition in 

10 an amount exceeding the amount of funds initially agreed 

11 to be provided by the Administrator under the applicable 

12 agreement. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           IGI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE INFORMATION)                               Three months ended
                                                                         MARCH 31, 1998      March 31, 1997
                                                                        -----------------  -------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                <C>
                                                                                           (RESTATED)
Net income (loss) for earnings per share                                      $     (203)          $       55
                                                                              ==========           ==========
 
Weighted average shares outstanding                                            9,466,667            9,431,377
 
     Common stock equivalents (net of common stock
          deemed reacquired) based on average market price                             -              174,014
                                                                              ----------           ----------
 
Total equivalent shares for diluted computation                                9,466,667            9,605,391
                                                                              ==========           ==========
 
Per Share Income (loss):
     Basic                                                                    $     (.02)          $      .01
     Diluted                                                                  $     (.02)          $      .01
</TABLE>










                                                                              16
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-27973 of Weider Nutrition International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report
dated August 20, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Weider
Nutrition International, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2001.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of Weider
Nutrition International, Inc., listed in Item 14. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
August 28, 2001
Exhibit 99.1

    Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
                      ------------------------------------------------

     I, Ronald N. Zebeck, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Metris
Companies Inc., certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2001 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2001 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Metris Companies Inc.


                                          /s/ Ronald N. Zebeck
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Ronald N. Zebeck
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)
                                          October 22, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2879 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2879

To provide that Executive Orders 14042 and 14043 shall have no force or 
                                effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2021

 Mr. Lankford introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that Executive Orders 14042 and 14043 shall have no force or 
                                effect.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Vaccine Mandates Act''.

SEC. 2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS 14042 AND 14043.

    The provisions of Executive Order 14042 (86 Fed. Reg. 50985; 
relating to ensuring adequate COVID safety protocols for Federal 
contractors) and Executive Order 14043 (86 Fed. Reg. 50989; relating to 
requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccination for Federal employees) 
are rescinded and shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```