alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016269EN.01002002.xml

| 23.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8082 — General Motors France/Groupe Dubreuil/Claro)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 269/03)

On 18 July 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 French 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 32016M8082. 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 32016M8082. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Ed
Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting of LightTouch Vein
& Laser, Inc.. (“the Registrant”) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge, based upon the review of the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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.








Date:
      August 28,  2008
            /s/ Ed
      Bailey


Ed
      Bailey


Chief
      Executive Officer


And
      Principal Accounting Officer











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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0024

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW ANDREW SOTTO,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including July 19, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 19 2024

06/19/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7516
WAYNE STEVEN EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA94-2407-WN) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Wayne Steven Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Evans v. Beshears , No. CA-94-2407-WN (D. Md. Aug. 21, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Table of content  Exhibit 13.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

   18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Honesti Basyir, Director of Finance (Chief Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Company.This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Company as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.Jakarta, March 26, 2013By:

   /s/ Honesti BasyirHonesti Basyir

   Director of Finance / Chief Financial Officer


---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1831

BRIAN L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HAMPTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT/SPECIAL EDUCATION,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

District Judge. (4:10-cv-00084-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian L. Davis appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his federal action against the Hampton Public School 

District. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Davis v. Hampton Pub. Sch. Dist./Special Educ., No. 4:10-cv00084-RBS-TEM (E.D. Va. July 19, 2010). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ROBERT T. MCALLISTER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 12-1387 (D.C. No. 1:11-CR-00283-PAB-1) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, KELLY and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Robert T. McAllist er’s plea agreement. The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud. Pursuant to the plea agreement, McAllister waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, provided the sentence was within the statutory maximu m authorized by law and did not upwardly

* This panel has determined that oral ar gument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 5, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - depart from the sentencing guideline range. The district court sentenced McAllister to 78 months’ imprisonment, the low end of the guideline range. Nevertheless, McAllister filed a notice of appeal. The government filed its motion to enforce the pl ea agreement pursuant to

United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).

McAllister has chosen not to file a response.

We have reviewed the motion and th e record, and agree that McAllister’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal wa iver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See id . at 1325 (describing the fa ctors this court considers when determining whether to enforce a waiver of appe llate rights). Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to enforce the plea agreement and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Carol DiRaimo,
         Vice President of Investor Relations
         913.967.4109

           Applebee's International Reports January Comparable Sales;
 Fourth Quarter 2005 Earnings Conference Call to be Broadcast over the Internet

OVERLAND  PARK,  KAN.,  January  24,  2006  --  Applebee's  International,  Inc.
(Nasdaq:APPB)  today reported  comparable  sales for the four-week  period ended
January 22, 2006.

System-wide  domestic  comparable  sales  increased  6.3 percent for the January
period,  and comparable sales for domestic franchise  restaurants  increased 6.7
percent.  Comparable  sales  for  company  restaurants  increased  5.3  percent,
reflecting an increase in guest traffic of approximately  1.0 percent,  combined
with a higher average check. System-wide comparable sales in the prior year were
negatively impacted by approximately 2.0 percent due to severe winter weather.

The company will release  fourth  quarter and fiscal year 2005 results after the
market  closes  on  February  8,  2006,  and a  conference  call will be held on
Thursday  morning,  February  9, 2006,  at 10:00 a.m.  Central  Time (11:00 a.m.
Eastern Time).  The conference call will be broadcast live over the Internet and
a replay will be available  shortly after the call on the  Investors  section of
the company's website (www.applebees.com).

Applebee's International,  Inc., headquartered in Overland Park, Kan., develops,
franchises and operates  restaurants under the Applebee's  Neighborhood  Grill &
Bar brand,  the largest  casual dining  concept in the world.  As of January 22,
2006, there were 1,810 Applebee's restaurants operating system-wide in 49 states
and  14   international   countries.   Additional   information   on  Applebee's
International can be found at the company's website (www.applebees.com).


                                      # # #
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3130 

To expand the transactions for which declarations may be required by the 

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include investments in United States businesses that maintain or collect sensitive 

personal data. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. WARNOCK) introduced the following bill; 

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

A BILL 

To expand the transactions for which declarations may be 

required by the Committee on Foreign Investment in 

the United States to include investments in United 

States businesses that maintain or collect sensitive personal data. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Sensitive 

5 Personal Data Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3130 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DECLARATIONS REQUIRED BY THE 

2 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN 

3 THE UNITED STATES. 

4 Section 721(b)(1)(C)(v)(IV)(cc) of the Defense Pro5 duction Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(b)(1)(C)(v)(IV)(cc)) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (a)(4)(B)(iii)(II)’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘subclause (II) or (III) of subsection 

8 (a)(4)(B)(iii)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

JEREMY D. GREENFIELD,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 785 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.5


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Eric W. Golden, Bobby G. Jenkins and Barry F.
Schwartz or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the PANAVISION INC. (the
"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and
on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or
officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any
instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the
Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of
attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable
securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents
this 30th day of March, 2004.



                                                    /S/ ED GREGORY HOOKSTRATTEN
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   ED GREGORY HOOKSTRATTEN
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROW 

BY: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ADRIANA DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; 

AND JAIME DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

SURF CITY INVESTORS, LLC, 

Res ondent. 

No. 82873 

FILE 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Cause appearing, appellants motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED.1 

cc: Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge 

Larry J. Cohen, Settlement Judge 

David J. Winterton & Associates, Ltd. 

Ghidotti Berger LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1Any relief regarding the bond for costs on appeal must be sought in 

the district court. NRAP 7. 

2.-tis 83 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(01 PM7 ArAt.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March

22 , 20 1 2

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 2

- 00 245

- CV

____________ IN RE ZAHIR QUERISHI , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 86707



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On March 8, 2012
, relator Zahir Querishi filed a petitio n for writ of mandamus in
this c ourt. See Tex. Gov = t Code § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In the petition, relator asks this court to order the respondent, Chris Daniel, Harris County District Clerk, to forward a copy of the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpu s to relator.
This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or county court j udge in the court of appeals’ district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’2

jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. Because the petition for writ of mandamus
is directed toward a district clerk and is not necessary to enforc e this court’s jurisdiction, we have no jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee; Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(A) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a 
meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) 
Advisory Committee.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

NAME:  Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee

TIME AND DATE:  April 22, 2015--9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW.,--Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591
    Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the 
Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in 
the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human 
factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the 
interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the 
meeting or obtain information should contact Chinita A. Roundtree-
Coleman at (609) 485-7149 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5e3d363730372a3f702c312b303a2a2c3b3b733d31323b333f301e383f3f70393128"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e0ebeaedeaf7e2adf1ecf6ede7f7f1e6e6aee0ecefe6eee2edc3e5e2e2ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>. Members 
of the public may present a written statement to the Committee at any 
time.
    Issued in Washington, DC on March 25, 2015.

Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman,
Computer Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2015-08106 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7037** 

OMEAKO L. BRISBON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. LATICIA OWENS, Head Nurse; MARY LOCKLEAR, Assistant Superintendent; BRAD PERRITT, Superintendent , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03282

- H )

Submitted : November 23, 2015 Decided: December 31, 2015

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion
. Omeako L. Brisbon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Omeako L. B risbon appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. However, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the district court should have dismissed Brisbon’s complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal order, with the modification that the dismissal is without prejudice. See Brisbon v. Owens , No. 5:14

- ct

- 03282

- H (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2015). W e 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 AS MODIFIED
Sanmina_Ex10.46_20130330






EXHIBIT 10.46
CALENDAR 2013 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


	
		
	Compensation Element
	Amount

	Board Cash Compensation
	Annual retainer - $80,0001

	Annual Equity Compensation
	Aggregate of $150,000 in value of stock options and restricted stock units2 determined as follows:
-    A number of stock options valued at $50,000 at the time of grant calculated using the Company’s stock compensation valuation practices for financial reporting
-    A number of restricted stock units calculated by dividing $100,000 by the closing stock price on the date of grant
-    Both grants vest as to 25% of the shares subject thereto on the first four quarterly anniversaries of the date of grant 

	Annual Lead Director Cash Compensation
	Additional retainer: $30,0001

	Committee Member Cash Compensation
	Annual retainer: 1
Audit Committee: $15,000
Compensation Committee: $10,000
Nominating and Governance Committee: $10,000

	Annual Committee Chair Cash Compensation
	Additional retainer: 1
Audit Committee: $15,000
Compensation Committee: $10,000
Nominating and Governance Committee: $10,000






                                            
1   Directors may elect to receive cash retainers in the form of restricted stock units with value equal to 133% of the forgone cash compensation and which vest in full on the day immediately prior to the annual meeting of stockholders held following the grant date. 


2  Represents amount of equity granted to Board members elected at annual meetings of stockholders. For members appointed between annual meetings of stockholders, grant amounts are pro rated based upon the time between the last annual meeting of stockholders and the date of appointment.
PURPOSE
  PARTICIPATION
  BONUS POOL




---



##### 



TARGET BONUS
   REALIZED BONUS
  1.
    
    Each Participants performance relative to a predetermined set of objectives (MBO
Performance Factor)2.
    
    The size of the Bonus Pool relative to anticipated bonus payments (The Bonus Pool
Factor)
   MBO Performance Factor
 
 Page 2




---



##### 



Business Results
    
    40% x 100% = 40%Business Development and Marketing
    
    20% x 100% = 20%Product Excellence
    
    20% x 50% = 10%Strategic Initiatives
    
    20% x 50% = 10%MBO Performance Factor = 40% + 20% + 10% + 10% = 80%
  Bonus Pool Factor
 PAYMENT
   Page 3