alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32010M6065 - EN

*|*

# 32010M6065

**Commission Decision of 14/12/2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6065 - AXA PRIVATE EQUITY / CIR / KOS) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

(.PICT.) |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 14.12.2010

SG-Greffe(2010) D/20088/20087

C(2010)9354 final

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying party

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6065 - AXA PRIVATE EQUITY / CIR / KOS Notification of 17/11/2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 321, 26/11/2010, p.10

1. On 17 November 2010, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertakings AXA Investment Managers Private Equity Europe SA ("AXA Private Equity", France) and Compagnie Industriali Riunite ("CIR", Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking KOS S.p.A. (""KOS", Italy), by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for AXA Private Equity: part of the AXA insurance and banking Group. It is active in asset management services.

- for CIR : energy, media, healthcare, automotive components and financial services.

- for KOS : healthcare services in Italy.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(c) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission

(signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Indiana Natural Gas Percentage Total Commercial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Indiana Natural Gas Percentage Total Commercial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 2.73   | 2.62   | 2.73   | 2.77   | 2.54   | 2.44   | 2.42  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2.84   | 2.60   | 2.62   | 2.74   | 2.71   | 2.54   | 2.51   | 2.51   | 2.69   | 2.53  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2.45   | 2.41   | 2.30   | 2.51   | 2.62   | 2.42   | 2.38   | 2.38   | 2.45   | 2.51  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.57   | 2.68   | 2.73   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
First Department,

May, 2017

(May 2, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vicki A. Taylor, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 866]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered October 29, 2013, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and a decision and order of this Court having been entered on December 15, 2016, holding the appeal in abeyance (145 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2016]), and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated March 8, 2017, it is unanimously ordered that the said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.
2017-0181.

#### State v. Boware.

Summit App. No. 27975, 2016-Ohio-7024. Reported at 149 Ohio St.3d 1433, 2017-Ohio-4396, 76 N.E.3d 1209. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Connor, C.J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,561
<SECURITIES>                                     1,482
<RECEIVABLES>                                  214,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,707
<INVENTORY>                                      1,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               235,086
<PP&E>                                         414,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,659)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 807,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          433,007
<BONDS>                                         67,852
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                     277,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   807,754
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,061,774
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,131,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,003
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (75,943)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,096)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
No. 12-6664.

#### McCarthy *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 12

                         MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                        March 31
                                                   ---------------
                                                  1997         1996
                                                  ----         ----
1.  EARNINGS

     a) Income before interest expense,
         income taxes and undistributed
         equity earnings ....................  $  290.0      $  245.9

     b) Single Business Tax (2).................    6.4           6.3

     c) Portion of rental expense
         representative of the
         interest factor (1)(2)..............       2.9           3.1
                                               --------      --------
     Total 1(a) through 1(c).................  $  299.3      $  255.3
                                               --------      --------
2.  FIXED CHARGES

     a) Total interest expense including
         capital lease obligations ..........  $   21.1      $   21.1

     b) Capitalized interest................        0.4           0.5

     c) Portion of rental expense
         representative of the
         interest factor (1).................       2.9           3.1
                                               --------      --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).................  $   24.4      $   24.7
                                               --------      --------
3.  RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES.......     12.27         10.34
                                               ========      ========


(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount
     representing return on capital.
     
(2)  Earnings represent income before income taxes and fixed charges.
     Since the Single Business Tax (the Tax) and rental expense have
     already been deducted, the Tax and the one-third portion of rental
     expense considered to be fixed charges are added back.
2016-1752.

#### ARCP LS Lakewood, OH, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-1853. On joint motion to remand the appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals in order to implement a settlement. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.
No. 12-164.

#### Figuereo-Sanchez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form
S-8 No. 333-72651 pertaining to the CD Warehouse, Inc. Amended 1996 Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement Form S-3 No. 333-58451 for the registration of
2,036,730 shares of common stock and the Registration Statement Form S-3 No.
333-72755 for the registration of 316,430 shares of common stock, and the
related Prospectuses of our report dated March 15, 2002, except for Note 9, as
to which the date is March 27, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of CD Warehouse, Inc. included in the Annual Report Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2001.

                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 27, 2002
#### In the Matter of Abdul Majid, Appellant, v Richard Brown, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 253]

-—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to disclose certain documents pursuant to Public Officers Law § 84 *et seq.,*the *803petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), dated October 12,1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In October 1993, the respondent turned over those documents demanded which were in his possession. The sufficiency of that production of documents was determined in a subsequent proceeding by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from which no appeal was taken. Accordingly, the instant appeal is academic. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4602



# 
M ONSTSHO E UGENE V ERNON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-239) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL C. Rauch Wise, LAW OFFICE OF C. RAUCH WISE, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United StatesAttorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Monstsho Eugene Vernon pled guilty to seven counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113(a) & (d), 2 (West 2000), and two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000). On appeal, Vernon contends that the district court erred in finding a factual basis for his plea for the § 924(c) offense charged in count 12 of his indictment, charging him with using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; specifically, an armed bank robbery. The district court’s determination of whether a factual basis exists for a guilty plea and its acceptance of a guilty plea is reversed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitchell , 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997). The record discloses an adequate factual basis for Vernon’s guilty plea. The court’s reading of the charges in the indictment, coupled with Vernon’s admission to the charges, provided a sufficient basis for the plea. See United States v. McFadden , 238 F.3d 198, 200 (2nd Cir. 2001). Moreover, Vernon also acknowledged the accuracy of the Government’s recitation of the factual basis for the charge, which specifically averred Vernon’s use of a handgun in connection with the robbery. Vernon also asserts that his receipt of a three-level enhancement for use of a "dangerous weapon" in connection with the underlying armed robbery offense undermines the validity of his § 924(c) conviction for use of a firearm, because both offenses relate to the same armed robbery. While we note that the Government concedes that application of the dangerous weapon enhancement to the pertinent bank robbery charge was improper under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.4, this does not undermine the validity of Vernon’s plea to the § 924(c) charge. Moreover, we further note that Vernondoes not challenge the propriety of the enhancement, or the Government’s position that application of the enhancement did not ultimately affect Vernon’s sentence.Accordingly, we affirm Vernon’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 U NITED S TATES v. V ERNONadequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. V ERNON
2012 Amendments to Heritage 2006 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.17 
 2012 AMENDMENTS TO HERITAGE 2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 28, 2009) 
 Heritage Bankshares, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), sponsors the Heritage
2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated January 28, 2009 (the “2006 Incentive Plan”). Effective January 25, 2012, the 2006 Incentive Plan was amended as follows: 

Section 1.24 of the 2006 Incentive Plan was amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“1.24 “Retirement” means the retirement of an officer or other employee from the Corporation or a Subsidiary or the
retirement of a non-employee director from the Board, in any such case either (i) at or after age 65 or (ii) at an age earlier than 65 when approved by a majority of the Board with respect to a particular officer, employee or non-employee
director.” 
 Section 9.1 of the 2006 Incentive Plan was amended and restated in its entirety to read as
follows: 
 “9.1 The Board may cause the Corporation to issue Restricted Stock from time to time. Whenever the Board
deems it appropriate to grant Restricted Stock hereunder, the Participant and the Corporation shall enter into a Restricted Stock Award Agreement with respect to such Award in the form prescribed by the Board, which such Agreement shall state the
number of Shares granted as Restricted Stock and the terms, conditions and restrictions to which the Restricted Stock is subject. Restricted Stock may be granted with or without cash consideration. Upon, and not before, the lapsing or removal of the
restrictions (i.e., the vesting) on any Shares of Restricted Stock in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan, the Corporation shall issue Common Stock in respect of such Restricted Stock that has vested either (i) in certificate
form or (ii) in book-entry form, in either case registered in the name of the Participant.” 
 Adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Company, effective January 25, 2012.
Call with John Wallace, Wallace Wood Products

1/24/2011, Contacted by Dave Mancinelli, Abt Associates Inc.

Call Notes

 Initial cost to TPC was about $10,000 for NAF exemption

o Initial test and 12 weeks of weekly testing cost about $6,000 - $8,000 (all 

performed by the TPC)

 At this time, they were not producing plywood. For each test, it 

took a lot of time to begin production to produce a small sample 

for testing.

o TPC employee needed to fly down from WI a couple times for plant audits

 Cost the mill $2,000 in travel each time

o Shipping was about $50/week for 12 weeks, plus about $200 for the initial 

testing

 Used UPS – 12” x 12” panels wrapped in plastic (they make 

smaller custom boards)

o Recordkeeping and labeling costs were very small

 They print labels using card stock – label bundles, not individual 

panels

 Recurring Costs

o Certification fee is $500 per quarter

o Plant audit occurs every 2 years
#### Meyer v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc.

2d Dept: 137 AD3d 878

denied
# Counseling, legal, financial services available free of charge via EAP

/ Published Jan. 23, 2019

Confidential counseling, financial services, legal services and more: Employees of the Defense Logistics Agency have all the services available free of charge through the federal Employee Assistance Program.

Cynthia Clark, a licensed clinical social worker who works in McNamara Headquarters Complex Health Unit, discussed the available services at an EAP orientation Jan. 22.

Counseling for DLA government employees is available any time of day or night, she said, by calling 800-222-0364. Regardless of the hour, counselors answer calls immediately, she noted, and no caller is subjected to a phone menu.

Users can also visit the EAP website or visit Clark in person at the HQC, for a private discussion inside the complex’s first-floor Health Unit, which employees often visit for flu shots, minor aches and pains, blood-pressure monitoring, lactation and other health needs.

Through the EAP, employees and members of their households — including in-laws, fiancés and children away at college — can receive up to six counseling sessions per issue per year at no charge, Clark said. There is no insurance involved for this service. 

The counseling can be for nearly any reason, she said. Counselors can offer, in addition to a listening ear followed by a proposed plan, voluntary screenings for addiction to drugs, alcohol or gambling, as well as depression or anxiety. But the No. 1 topic is workplace interactions, Clark noted. 

Confidentiality is taken so seriously that records are kept on a computer separate from the DLA system, she said, and they cannot be shared with anyone without the expressed written consent of the employee. No one else — not insurance companies, spouses, or even DLA Human Resources — has access to those files, she said.

Household members don’t have to tell the DLA employee they’re using the service, she noted; they can simply say who the DLA employee is and receive the service confidentially.

EAP counselors, who are all trained and state-licensed specialists, don’t offer clinical diagnoses or treatments but instead “focus on short-term problem-solving,” Clark explained. They can also refer employees to outside providers, including those near their homes. 

In addition to counseling, the EAP offers licensed attorneys on call to discuss any number of legal situations. Legal counseling is unlimited, and some legal services are free of charge, she noted. EAP also offers specialists in financial advice and dealing with common needs such as finding child care.

The next EAP event at the McNamara HQC will be Feb. 21, on the “power of positive thinking.”
2017-0515.

#### State v. Myers.

Wood App. No. WD-16-026, 2017-Ohio-1220. Appellant’s motion to strike denied as moot.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Annual Report of Sun World Partners, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ron Lizee, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  September 15, 2008

By: /s/ Ron Lizee

Name: Ron Lizee

Title:   Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
CAAP-11-0001038

#### Jou v. Rehabilitation Hosp. of Pacific

Affirmed
#### Alii Sec. Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transp.

CAAP-12-0000790

02/13/2014

Affirmed