alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019232EN.01000801.xml

| 10.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9014 — PKN Orlen/Grupa Lotos)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 232/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Polski Koncern Naftowy ORLEN Spółka Akcyjna, Poland (‘Orlen’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Polski Koncern Naftowy ORLEN Spółka Akcyjna, Poland (‘Orlen’);

| — | Grupa Lotos Spółka Akcyjna, Poland (‘Lotos’). |
| --- | --- |

—

Grupa Lotos Spółka Akcyjna, Poland (‘Lotos’).

Orlen acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Lotos.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and a public takeover bid.

2.

| — | Orlen is a vertically integrated entitity, mainly active in the refining and marketing (including retail) of fuel and related products in Poland, as well as in the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Germany. It also has activities in the upstream exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas, as well as in the petrochemicals market. |
| --- | --- |

—

Orlen is a vertically integrated entitity, mainly active in the refining and marketing (including retail) of fuel and related products in Poland, as well as in the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Germany. It also has activities in the upstream exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas, as well as in the petrochemicals market.

| — | Lotos is a vertically integrated entity mainly active in the refining and marketing (including retail) of fuel and related products mostly in Poland. It also has activities in the upstream exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lotos is a vertically integrated entity mainly active in the refining and marketing (including retail) of fuel and related products mostly in Poland. It also has activities in the upstream exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

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.9014 — PKN Orlen/Grupa Lotos

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 |

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

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 32.2:    Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

I,
Gordon A. Milne, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of The Ryland Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, of the Company (the "Report"), that:



/s/ Gordon A. Milne Gordon A. Milne
February 26, 2010


---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 23**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders Ruddick Corporation:

          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 33-26302, No. 33-56567, No. 333-19085, No. 333-22659, No. 333-53671, No. 333-62768, No. 333-98265, and No. 333-105665 on Form S-8 of Ruddick Corporation and subsidiaries of our reports dated December 6, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ruddick Corporation and subsidiaries as of October 2, 2005 and October 3, 2004, and related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 2, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule – valuation and qualifying accounts and reserves and on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of October 2, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of October 2, 2005,which report appears in the October 2, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Ruddick Corporation.

          As discussed in the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in our report dated December 6, 2005, on the financial statements of Ruddick Corporation and subsidiaries, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” effective September 30, 2002.

|                                         | /s/  KPMG LLP |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Charlotte, North Carolina   December 6, 2005 |               |
No. 12-5530.

#### Gonzaga Rodriquez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### State v. Blacklock

107,466

06/29/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     I, James C. Mavel, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
Scan-Optics, Inc., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Scan-Optics, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statement
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.

Date: April 29, 2004


                                        /ss/
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James C. Mavel
                                        Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                        and President
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-187-003]


Arkansas Western Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 1, 1997, Arkansas Western Pipeline 
Company (AWP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, pro 
forma tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 1997.
    AWP states that the filing sets forth the revisions to AWP's tariff 
sheets that are necessary to comply with Order No. 587 in Docket No. 
RM96-1-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest this filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such petitions or protests must be filed on or before 
April 21, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9268 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7927]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1163-DR]


Kentucky; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Kentucky (FEMA-1163-DR), dated March 4, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madga Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter 
dated March 17, 1997, the President amended the cost-sharing 
arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. 51521 et seq.), in a letter to James L. Witt, Director of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State 
of Kentucky, resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding 
on March 1, 1997, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and 
magnitude that the provision of direct Federal assistance to ensure 
public health and safety is warranted under the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (``the Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of March 4, 1997 to authorize 
direct Federal assistance at 100 percent Federal funding for 
eligible debris removal costs for Pendleton County. Additional areas 
may be added at a later date, if requested and warranted.
    Please notify the Governor of the State of Kentucky and the 
Federal Coordinating Officer of this amendment to my major disaster 
declaration.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
James L. Witt,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-7927 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Ap peals, sitting by

assignment . Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). NO. 07-02-0163 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E DECEM BER 13, 2002

______________________________ DARRICK WAYNE CARTER, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE248 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY; NO. 899462; HON ORABLEJOAN CA MPB ELL, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ. 1 Upon hisplea of guilty, appellant Darrick W ayne Carter was convicted of the felony o ffense of evading arrest. His punishm ent, in accordance w ith a plea barga in , wa s2

assessed at three ye ars confi nemen t in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave tim ely notice of appeal from the conviction. On Dec ember 6, 2002, we received appellant’s m otion to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss t he appeal. His attorney j oined in the motion. B ecause a p pell ant’s mot i on m eets all therequirem ents of Texa s Rule of

AppellateProce dure 42. 2(a ), an d because this court has not delivered its decision prior to receiving appellant’s motion, the mot ion must be, and is hereby, granted. Having dismissed th e appeal at ap pell ant’s req uest, n o m otio ns f or r ehe arin g w ill be entertained and our m andate will issue forthwith. John T. Boyd Senior Justi ce Do not publish.
AFS-12-030-E 

November 21, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10043A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-10283 

Mr. Travis J. Garnick 

President 

Butler Aircraft Company 

1050 SE. Sisters Avenue 

Redmond, OR 97756 

Dear Mr. Garnick: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10043. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the condition 

and limitation. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Butler Aircraft Company (Butler) for an extension of Exemption No. 10043. 

That exemption from § 91.529(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) allows Butler to operate its Boeing Douglas DC-6 and DC-7 airplanes without a 

flight engineer during flightcrew training, ferry operations, and test flights that are conducted 

to prepare for firefighting operations carried out under 14 CFR part 137. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Butler. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10043 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the condition and limitation listed below. 

Condition and Limitation 

This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10043 to March 31, 2014, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
#### State v. Morgan

107,515

10/29/13

Denied.

Unpublished
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2013

NO. 03-13-00288-CR

Johnny Moreno, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s 

order: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the order of the 

trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Aloha, 

;-_ ._,: 

- -

'' , --Pa'oneakai Lee-Namakaeha < kauikeolani_2004@hotmail.com > 

- 'TUesday, April 29, 2014 7:16 PM 

_E_AS_(QST) 

p~titi6hs for Mokulele claiming to speak on behalf of Kalaupapa Residents is FALSE! 

John_Puaoi_(Correspondence).pdf 

We (residence of Kalaupapa) have been getting wind that there are residents from other communities that are 

not part of Kalaupapa claiming to speak on behalf of ourselves (residents of Kalaupapa). How can anyone 

claim to speak on behalf of Kalaupapa residents in choosing Mokulele for the EAS when Kalaupapa community 

residents want MAKANI KAI FOR THE EAS! I am asking the EAS to reconsider those petitions that claim to be 

speaking on behalf of Kalaupapa residents when they are not a resident of Kalaupapa. No one should have 

more of an opinion for the EAS than those who do/will use that service! 

I have attached a copy of a template of a petition for Mokulele for the EAS in Kalaupapa. The person who is 

signing the petition is claiming to speak on behalf of Kalaupapa residence when he, John Puaoi is NOT a 

resident of Kalaupapa, therefore he can only speak on his behlaf. I do not understand why people who are not 

from Kalaupapa, or who will not use the service should have an opinion! The EAS in Kalaupapa will affect us 

(those who live here and those who use the service). 

During our community meeting here in Kalaupapa on the first Tuesday of April, 99% of the community 

members in attendance pleaded with Mokulele to withdraw their bid for the EAS and explained that we as a 

community do not feel that Mokulelel will meet our needs. We have expressed continued faith and encourage 

that Makani Kai continue to provide the EAS into Kalaupapa! 

My name is Pa'oneakai Lee-Namakaeha and I am a resident of Kalaupapa and I want MAKANI KAI as the EAS 

for Kalaupapa! 

1
#### State v. McMackin

109,022

02/12/14

Denied.

Unpublished
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 6, 2009 

jm 

Order 

 

November 6, 2009 

139859 (20) 

JEFFREY B. ALLISON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139859 

 COA: 292166 

MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $46.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$329.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. 

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
No. 12-6200.

#### Rutherford *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.