alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019102EN.01000102.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9259 — Investindustrial/Natra)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 102/02)

On 5 March 2019, 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:

| — | 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 32019M9259. 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 32019M9259. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In connection with this Transitional Yearly Report of Confederate Motors, Inc. (fka French Peak Resources, Inc.)  (the “Company”) on the Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
Such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Confederate Motors, Inc.




Date: May 17, 2010






By: /s/ Joseph Mitchell


Joseph Mitchell


Chief Fianncial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              SEP-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           2,779
<SECURITIES>                                     1,344
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                       641
<INVENTORY>                                        556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,328
<PP&E>                                          92,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,998
<BONDS>                                         22,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              101
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,181
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,606
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (123)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,698
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Ohio Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Ohio Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3.72   | 3.24   | 3.15  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.97   | 8.17   | 3.78   | 6.20   | 6.70   | 9.53   | 7.97   | 7.88   | 10.79  | 4.40  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5.01   | W      | 3.05   | 3.95   | 4.31   | 2.42   | 2.36   | 3.07   | 3.30   | 2.58  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1.99   | 3.90   | 6.34   | 2.31   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
# C_2019239EN.01000801.xml

| 16.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9398 — Centerbridge Partners/AmTrust Corporate Member)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 239/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Centerbridge Partners L.P. (‘Centerbridge’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Centerbridge Partners L.P. (‘Centerbridge’, USA),

| — | AmTrust Corporate Member Limited and certain other business assets (‘AmTrust’, UK). |
| --- | --- |

—

AmTrust Corporate Member Limited and certain other business assets (‘AmTrust’, UK).

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

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

2.

| — | Centerbridge is an investment management firm organised in the USA focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities. It also provides non-life insurance and reinsurance services through Canopius AG (‘Canopius’, Switzerland), |
| --- | --- |

—

Centerbridge is an investment management firm organised in the USA focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities. It also provides non-life insurance and reinsurance services through Canopius AG (‘Canopius’, Switzerland),

| — | AmTrust provides non-life insurance and reinsurance services. |
| --- | --- |

—

AmTrust provides non-life insurance and reinsurance services.

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.9398 — Centerbridge Partners/AmTrust Corporate Member

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 32.4  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric Company for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Terry A. Hanson, 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:  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/ Terry A. Hanson Terry A. Hanson Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Date: May 7, 2008
January28, 1976 

The Honorable Fratis L. Duff 

Director 

Opinion No. H-773 

Texas Department of Health 

Resources 

Austin, Texas 76756 

Re: Entitlement of 

Board of Health Resources 

members to per diem 

allowance. 

Dear Doctor Duff: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the entitlement of,members of the Board of Health Resources to per diem 

payments. Specifically, you inquire whether articles 4416a 

and 4417a, V.T.C.S., permit per diem payments when less than 

a quorum of the Board is convened. You have indicated that 

your concern is directed to committee meetings and other 

similar meetings designed to be attended by less than a 

quorum of the full Board. You also ask whether per diem 

payments are authorized when a quorum of the Board meets at 

a place other than Austin. 

Article 4416a, as recently amended, provides in pertinent part: 

A majority of the members of the Texas 

Board of Health Resources constitute a ..* quorum for the transaction of business. 

The Board shall meet at Austin at least 

once each month, on dates to be fixed by 

the Board, and shall hold such special 

meetings as may be called by the Chair-~ 

man. . . . 

p. 3268 
The Honorable Fratis L. Duff - page two W-773) 

Article 44lJa, as recently amended, provides in pertinent 

part: 

The members of the Texas Board of 

Health Resources receive no fixed salary, 

but each member shall be allowed, for 

each and every day in attending the meetings 

of the Board, the sum of $50, 'and said 

members shall be allowed traveling and 

other necessary expenses while in the 

performance of official duty. . . . 

Article 4417a authorizes payment of the sum of $50 for 

each day a member attends the meetin s of the Board. 

opinion, a meeting is a "meetrng ' +eToZZPTFEFpur~Z!Z 0 

of article 4417a, only when it is a meeting designed to be 

attended by the entire membership of then Board. Thus, a 

committee meeting or an informal gathering of several members 

would not constitute a meeting of the Board. 

As to your second question, it is our opinion that per 

diem payments are authorized when the Board meets at a place 

other than' Austin. Although article 4416a contemplates that 

the reqular'monthly meetings of the Board shall be held at 

Austin, it also permits the Board to "hold such special 

meetings as may be called by the Chairman." The Act does 

not specifically require that such special meetings be held 

at Austin. So long as the "special meeting" is one which is 

designed to be attended by all Board members, we believe 

that payment of the per diem allowance is authorized. 

SUMMARY 

A per diem allowance may be paid to 

members of the Board of Health Resources 

only for those meetings designed to be 

attended by all members of the Board. 

The per diem allowance may be paid for 

all such meetings. 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 3269 
The Honorable Fratis L. Duff - page three (H-773) 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3270
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

134165 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134165 COA: 268413 Wayne CC: 04-011400-01 BRANDON GREGORY JOHNSON, a/k/a BRANDON GREG ORY ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 10, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0830 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.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           | 1,120,333 | 1,380,453 | 1,387,120 | 1,135,453 | 1,313,376 | 1,550,268 | 1,754,537
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,509,935 | 1,583,554 | 1,666,250 | 1,625,004 |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
# C_2019185EN.01000701.xml

| 29.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/7

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 17 January 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40049 — Mastercard II

Rapporteur: Malta

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 185/05)

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision amounted to a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the decision by the association of undertakings infringes Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the decision by the association of undertakings was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the decision by the association of undertakings has been capable of appreciably restricting competition.

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the decision by the association of undertakings was not objectively necessary.

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the decision by the association of undertakings has been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and EEA.

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the decision by the association of undertakings does not meet the conditions for an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU.

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the duration of the infringement.

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the addressees of the decision.

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine.

12.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fine.

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are aggravating circumstances applicable in this case (i.e. recidivism).

14.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fine for cooperation based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines.

15.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.

16.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reference to Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

17.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
#### Shane BURNETT, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. TARGET CORPORATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0994

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 08, 2017

L.T. NO.: 16-16320

Transferred.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSO N BOULEVAR D 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

SEP 04 ZOO 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: 

C-14J 

Joseph Kellmeyer 

Thompson Coburn LLP 

One US Bank Plaza 

St. Louis, Missouri 63101 

Re: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC's Comprehensive Performance Test Plans for 

Incinerators 2, 3, and 4 

Dear Mr. Kellmeyer: 

I am writing to you on behalf of our Air and Radiation Division. The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7401 et seq. and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Hazardous Waste Combustors, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (HWC MACT) require Veolia 

ES Technical Solutions, LLC (Veolia) to perform a comprehensive performance test (CPT) on or 

before September 5, 2013. Although the United States Environmental Protection Agency and 

Veolia have been in communication about the plan for the upcoming CPT, including exchanging 

letters and emails and participating in numerous calls over the recent weeks, the CPT as currently 

planned will not document compliance with applicable HWC MACT emissions standards, and 

cannot be used to establish appropriate operating feed rate limits. 

Veolia has yet to submit a CPT plan that comports with the test plan requirements under the 

HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(f) as explained in detail in EPA's July 26, 2013 

correspondence. For example, Veolia's latest draft of the plan does not adequately lay out all 

required test conditions. Furthermore, Veolia has failed to submit all the information EPA 

requested in the August 9, 2013 Information Request, which EPA needs to determine if the 

materials selected for the burn are appropriate and well characterized for the purpose of the CPT. 

Most significantly, even if Veolia does modify its CPT plan as recommended by EPA in our 

August 26,2013 letter, based on the significant problems with the facility's feed stream analysis 

program identified in the August 24, 2012 Finding of Violation, the CPT would still not 

demonstrate that Veolia is in compliance with the HWC MAC T feed rate limits and ultimately 

the HWC MACT emission standards on a day-to-day basis. Due to the significant flaws in 

Veolia's feed analysis program, it is impossible to determine what is fed into the facility's 

incinerators on a day-to-day basis, making it practically infeasible to correlate what Veolia burns 

during the CPT with the day-to-day feed stream. This in turn thwarts one of the primary 

purposes of the CPT, which is to demonstrate compliance with the HWC MACT emission 

standards. As EPA requested, Veolia should install and operate continuous emission monitoring 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% Post-Consumer) 
systems at the facility to allow it to demonstrate and ensure that the emission standards are met 

on a continuous basis as required by the HWC MACT. 

If you have any questions regarding EPA's concerns or wish to discuss the CPT plan, please 

contact me at (312) 886-0703. 

Eric Cohen 

Branch Chief 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Enclosure 

cc: Ray Pilapil, IEPA 

2