alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### i

.,;l:;;1<it<Y"'',
..

# ~-----~~~-~-~~!!!:_~_~-:~!~-~~-~-~-----) 

# ::**!~ ~** **g~i:: ~** **:~:: ~:** **~**j

# S;: 81:; t NATIONAL AIRPORT 

## I p 417.868.0500 f 417.868.0501

------------------------ ------------------------------ -·-···------------------''""'''-'----------------------------·-------+--------------------·---·-------------·····----------------------------------------------------------·- June 29, 2012
Ms. Aloha Ley Associate Director Small Community Air Service Development Program United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 1 i

Re: Small Community Air Service Development Program Docket# DOT-OST-2012-0069 Dear Ms. Ley: This letter is to raise objections to an application submitted to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) for federal grant funding to support air service development efforts at the private Branson Airport, Branson, Missouri. The City ofSpringfield, Missouri, owns and operates the Springfield-BransonNational Airport (SGF), which is classified as a small hub airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). SGF has direct service to ten destinations from American, United, Delta, and Allegiant Airlines, including multiple daily flights to four majorhubs. There were 365,698 enplanements in 2011. We have no problem with fair competition as it helps keep air fares in check, increases options to the public, and is good for the region's economic growth. We also have no desire that the private Branson Airport fail even though no federal, state, or local governmental entity asked that it be built. We simply raise a question offairness. The private Branson Airport has touted itselffrom day one as a completely newbusiness model that does not want orneed federal aviation funding to be successful. They have stated publically they want the competitive advantage ofnot having to follow the samerules and grant conditions all public airports must follow to receive federal aviation funding, known as GrantAssurances. We understand they have used this advantage to enter into agreements guaranteeing exclusive rights, diverting airport revenue to payprivate shareholders, and to subsidize airline service with airport revenue, all ofwhich are prohibited under FAA Grant Assurances. However, none ofthis can be readily verified since they are notrequired to disclose this information as a private airport. We feel federal aviation funding should not be granted to the Branson/Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Visitors Bureau, even as public entities, because any grant funds would be used exclusively to marketthe private BransonAirport. It would be usingpublic funds to promote a private for-profit business
.

.**·"···~**

### Page2 June 29, 2012 Ms. Aloha Ley

Ifapproved, it would set up an 

### unfairplaying field where SGF 

### would be severely disadvantaged and couldjeopardize the significantpublic investment made to develop SGF 

### into the state-ofthe-art facility that it is today. Thank you for your consideration ofthese comments. Respectfully Submitted,

Brian C. Weiler, A.A.E. Director ofAviation
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 6, 2010

0429 

# Order

May 6, 2010

140302

ESCANABA PAPER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140302 COA: 286144 Ct of Claims: 04-000227-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 19, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
alog-ex102_154.htm



Exhibit 10.2

DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM 

ANALOGIC CORPORATION AMENDED AND RESTATED

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN (THE “PLAN”)

 


	
I.
	
Plan Year and Return Information. This deferral election applies only to the Plan Year shown below. We must receive your completed form by the Return Date or your deferral election will not be effective.  




 


		
	
Plan Year
	
CY2018

	
Return Date:
	
December 15, 2017

	
Return To:
	
Jackie Lucas at Analogic

e-mail:  jlucas@analogic.com




 


	
II.
	
Participant Name and Address




 


		
	
Name:
	
     

	
Address:
	
     

 




 


	
III.
	
Annual Cash Retainer Deferral Election. Please defer my Annual Cash Retainer ($50,000 for CY2018) as shown below.  The deferral percentage must be between 0% and 100%, in multiples of 10 (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.).  The total of the deferral percentages must equal either 0% or 100%.




 


			
	
Percentage Deferred as Deferred Stock Units
	
0%
	
 

	
Percentage Deferred into Cash Account
	
0%
	
 

	
Total of above:
	
0%
	
 




 


	
IV.
	
Annual Share Retainer Deferral Election. Please defer the indicated portion of my Annual Share retainer into Deferred Stock Units as shown below. The deferral percentage must be between 0% and 100%, in multiples of 10 (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.).




 


			
	
Percentage Deferred as Deferred Stock Units
	
0%
	
 




 


	
V.
	
Distribution Election. Please distribute the then-current value of my Deferred Stock Units and/or cash account for the current Plan Year when indicated below. Mark only one/select date as applicable.




 


		
	
☐
	
Upon termination of my service to Analogic as a member of the Board of Directors.

	
☐    Date:         
	
On the date shown (must be at least one year from the date of your election).




 


	
VI.
	
Participant Signature and Date. I acknowledge that my deferral election is subject to the Plan and the Plan Prospectus, copies of which have been provided to me. Deferral elections that are contrary to the Plan or that are received after the Return Date will not be effective. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this form will have the definitions given to them in the Plan.




 


		
	
Signature:
	
Date:




 

2017 11 19 – For CY2018
# Official Journal C 309/18 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5818 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 309

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5818 September 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 309/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 309/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 309/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 309/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

11

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2021305EN.01003901.xml

| 30.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/39

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M. 10367 — Platinum Equity Group/Grupo Urbaser)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 305/10)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Platinum Equity Group (USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Platinum Equity Group (USA),

| — | Grupo Urbaser (Spain). |
| --- | --- |

—

Grupo Urbaser (Spain).

Platinum Equity Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Grupo Urbaser.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Platinum Equity Group: the merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide services and solutions to customers in a broad range of businesses, including information technology, telecommunications, logistics, metal services, manufacturing and distribution, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Platinum Equity Group: the merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide services and solutions to customers in a broad range of businesses, including information technology, telecommunications, logistics, metal services, manufacturing and distribution,

| — | for Grupo Urbaser: the provision of urban services (primarily waste collection and related activities and water management services) as well as waste treatment activities (such as municipal solid waste treatment and industrial waste treatment) in more than 20 countries mainly located in Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America and South America. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Grupo Urbaser: the provision of urban services (primarily waste collection and related activities and water management services) as well as waste treatment activities (such as municipal solid waste treatment and industrial waste treatment) in more than 20 countries mainly located in Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America and South America.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10367 — Platinum Equity Group/Grupo Urbaser

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
# Official Journal C 43A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.043.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 43A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5615 February 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.043.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 43A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5615 February 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2013/C 043A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AST/113/11 — Assistants (AST 3) to prepare and check the linguistic quality of texts for the Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice — Language editors with English as their main language (EN) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2013/C 043A/01

Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AST/113/11 — Assistants (AST 3) to prepare and check the linguistic quality of texts for the Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice — Language editors with English as their main language (EN)

1

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 15.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 43/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 43/1

---

RESERVE LIST (1)

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/113/11

ASSISTANTS (AST 3)

TO PREPARE AND CHECK THE LINGUISTIC QUALITY OF TEXTS FOR THE REPORTS OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE

LANGUAGE EDITORS WITH ENGLISH AS THEIR MAIN LANGUAGE (EN)

(2013/C 43 A/01)

| CAHILL | Marianne |
| --- | --- |
| RANDALL | Nadine |

CAHILL

Marianne

RANDALL

Nadine

The reserve list will be valid until 20 December 2015 and may be extended.

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

---
NO. 07-03-0137-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	DECEMBER 3, 2003

	______________________________

	EMILIO CORTEZ SANDOVAL, JR., APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 287TH DISTRICT COURT OF BAILEY COUNTY;

	NO. 2154; HONORABLE GORDON H. GREEN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	PERMANENT ABATEMENT

	Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Emilio Cortez Sandoval, Jr. was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance, enhanced, and punishment was assessed  at 15 years confinement and a $5,000 fine.  Following submission of this appeal, the State filed a Suggestion of Death indicating appellant died on November 16, 2003.  

	An appellant’s death during the pendency of his appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction.  See Freeman v. State, 11 S.W.3d 240 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000) citing Ryan v. State, 891 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994).    Accordingly, this appeal is permanently abated.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish. us that appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the record and to submit a request for the preparation of the record or a letter designating those portions of the record desired.  Furthermore, the clerk’s record indicates that appellant may be indigent.

	Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the County Court of Cochran County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall  immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following: 

	1.  whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

	2.  whether appellant is indigent; and, 

	3.  whether the appellant is entitled to appointed counsel and a free appellate record. 

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a supplemental reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Should it be determined that appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to an appointed attorney but has none, then the trial court shall appoint counsel, unless appellant knowingly and voluntarily waives counsel.  Furthermore, the name, address, and phone number of any counsel appointed by the trial court to represent appellant shall be included in the supplemental record.  The trial court shall also file both supplemental records with the clerk of this court on or before April 6, 2005.  Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then it must be requested before April 6, 2005. 

      	It is so ordered. 

                                                                             Per Curiam 

 Do not publish.
EXHIBIT  32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of Equicap, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 10th day of May, 2005.


                             By: /s/ Stephen M. Siedow
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive Officer,
                                     President and Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Equicap, Inc. and will be retained by Equicap, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001006598
<NAME> HARVARD SCIENTIFIC CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         96,231
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,647
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               291,110
<PP&E>                                         15,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500,989
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,289
<OTHER-SE>                                     (168,209)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   392,070
<SALES>                                        181,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,000
<CGS>                                          216,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,312,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,358,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,358,273)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,358,273)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.15)
        


</TABLE>
#### Frank KONARSKI, DBA FGPJ Apartments & Development; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael G. RANKIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17182

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Frank Konarski, Pro Se

Gabriela Konarski, Pro Se

Patricia Konarski, Pro Se

John F. Konarski, Pro Se

Frank E. Konarski, Pro Se

Jenne S. Forbes, Attorney, James W. Stuehringer, Esquire, Attorney, Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw *&*Villa-mana, P.C., Tucson, AZ', for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying a motion for relief from judgment, *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Konarskis’ motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) because the Konarskis failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or any other ground for relief. *See ACandS, 5*F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); *see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,*624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party’s failure to meet a déadline constitutes “excusable neglect”).

Appellees’- request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2401

_____________________________

JALONI MCGHEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela M. Cox, Judge.

January 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jaloni McGhee, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.