alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017299EN.01000201.xml

| 9.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8596 — Colindale/Goldman Sachs/JRE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 299/03)

On 5 September 2017, 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:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8596. 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 32017M8596. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2847

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Kurt Robert Davis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 23, 2003

Filed: December 30, 2003

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following sentencing upon his conditional guilty plea to being a felon in

possession of firearms, Kurt Robert Davis appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his

motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. We have carefully reviewed
-2-

the record, and conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Davis’s

consent to the search at issue was voluntary. 

Davis argues that his consent was not voluntary because he had been drinking

alcohol at the time and he was effectively prevented from leaving his property, but

the district court was entitled to credit a police officer’s testimony that Davis did not

appear intoxicated: his speech was not slurred, and he did not have trouble walking,

moving, or talking. The court also was entitled to credit the officer’s testimony that

Davis had been free to leave at the time he gave his consent, despite Davis’s contrary

testimony. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002)

(district court’s decision at suppression hearing to credit police officer’s testimony

was not clearly erroneous, even though officer’s testimony conflicted with

defendant’s; district court was in better position to assess credibility of witnesses);

United States v. Gipp, 147 F.3d 680, 686 (8th Cir. 1998) (rejecting contention that

appellant could not have voluntarily consented because he was under influence of

drugs; officers testified that appellant answered their questions intelligently, behaved

rationally, and except for some nervous behavior, appeared normal); United States v.

Hathcock, 103 F.3d 715, 719-20 (8th Cir. 1997) (court must examine environment in

which consent was given, including how long individual was detained and whether

individual (1) was threatened, physically intimidated, or punished by police; (2) relied

upon police’s promises or misrepresentations; (3) was in custody or under arrest; (4)

was in public or secluded place; and (5) objected to search), cert. denied, 521 U.S.

1127 (1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 09-8904.

#### Wardell Moore, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas *566Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 1051, 130 S. Ct. 2346,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2939,

176 L. Ed. 2d 565,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2017141EN.01000301.xml

| 5.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/3

---

Special Report No 7/2017

‘The certification bodies’ new role on CAP expenditure: a positive step towards a single audit model but with significant weaknesses to be addressed’

(2017/C 141/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 7/2017 ‘The certification bodies’ new role on CAP expenditure: a positive step towards a single audit model but with significant weaknesses to be addressed’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 10 (xii)

                        AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES INC.

                              STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

                                    ADDENDUM

                                 UNITED KINGDOM

For Participants based in the United Kingdom, the following Sections of the Plan
shall be revised as follows:

        2.1.n  "Employee means any officer or other key employee of the Company
or any of its Subsidiaries.

        2.1.aa "Subsidiary" means any corporation in which the Company owns,
directly or indirectly, a majority of the voting rights.

        10.1   Non-transferability of Awards. Unless the Committee shall permit
(on such terms and conditions as it shall establish) an Incentive Award to be
transferred, no Incentive Award granted under the plan may be sold, transferred,
pledged, assigned or otherwise alienated or hypothecated, other than by will or
the intestacy rules, provided always that any such transfer may only be to a
qualifying person as defined by Regulation 7(12) of the Public Offers of
Securities Regulations 1995. All rights with respect to any Incentive Award
granted to a Participant under the Plan shall be exercisable during his lifetime
only by such Participant, or if transferred as contemplated by the previous
sentence, a permitted transferee.

        10.2   Beneficiary Designation. Each Participant under the Plan may from
time to time name any beneficiary or beneficiaries (who may be named
contingently or successively) to whom any benefit under the Plan is to be paid
or by whom any right under the Plan is to be exercised in case of such
Participant's death. Each designation shall revoke all prior designations by the
same Participant, shall be in a form prescribed by the Committee, and shall be
effective only when filed by the Participant in writing with the Committee
during such Participant's lifetime. In the absence of any such designation,
benefits remaining unpaid or Incentive Awards outstanding at the Participant's
death shall be paid or exercised by the



                                        1

<PAGE>   2

Participant's spouse, if any, or otherwise to or by the Participant's estate;
provided always that any right under the Plan may be exercised only by the
personal representatives of the Participant (being either the executors of his
will to whom a valid grant of probate has been made or if such Participant dies
intestate the duly appointed administrator(s) of such Participant's estate) who
have provided to the Committee evidence of their appointment as such, or any
other qualifying person as defined by Regulation 7(12) of the Public Offers of
Securities Regulation 1995, and any reference in the Plan to "designated
beneficiary" shall be construed accordingly.



                                        2
No. 09-8533.

#### Henry J. LaFavors, Petitioner v. Florida Department of Corrections.

559 U.S. 1011, 130 S. Ct. 1941,

176 L. Ed. 2d 373,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2591,

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 18, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA ANN SHARP,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BILL RITTER, Governor of Colorado;

NOBLE WALLACE, Warden DWCF,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-1058

(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00107-REB-BNB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Martha Ann Sharp is a prisoner of the Colorado Department of Corrections. 

Back in 2007, she filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

contesting certain details of her parole eligibility. But while that petition was

pending she absconded from custody, and the district court denied her habeas

petition shortly thereafter.

Now serving time on an escape conviction, Ms. Sharp filed a motion under

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) purportedly seeking to revisit the denial of her 2007
- 2 -

habeas petition. However, rather than challenging the district court’s prior

judgment, the motion advanced grievances wholly distinct from those contained

in her 2007 petition. Noting as much, the district court denied Ms. Sharp’s

motion and suggested that these complaints should be brought in a new habeas

petition. Instead, Ms. Sharp filed this appeal, and now seeks a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s disposition of her Rule

60(b) motion. 

We may issue a COA only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard,

an applicant must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” United States v. Taylor, 454 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation

omitted). Because Ms. Sharp proceeds in this court pro se, we review her

pleadings with special solicitude.

We see nothing to suggest any impropriety in the district court’s ruling. 

Ms. Sharp did not (and still does not) advance any argument why she should be

relieved from the district court’s prior judgment. Rather, she asserts new

complaints having to do with the calculation of her parole eligibility in view of

her latest conviction, as well as allegations of various civil rights violations. A

Rule 60(b) motion, of course, is not the proper vehicle for launching fresh and
- 3 -

unrelated claims for relief. As the district court rightly concluded, Ms. Sharp’s

new grievances must be brought, if at all, in a new habeas petition.

Ms. Sharp’s application for COA and her motion to proceed in forma

pauperis are denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,091]


Westpoint Home, Calhoun Falls, SC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 3, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official, on behalf of workers of WestPoint 
Home, Calhoun Falls, South Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of February 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-4404 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 09-8414.

#### Richard Lynn Bible, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

559 U.S. 995, 130 S. Ct. 1745,

176 L. Ed. 2d 218,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2252.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 571 F.3d 860.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1086

In Re: BERNARD MCFADDEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(5:13-cv-02290-JMC)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard McFadden, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard McFadden petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order directing the district court to issue an order 

compelling discovery or an injunction. We conclude that 

McFadden is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988).

The relief sought by McFadden is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Air Carrier 
Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss air carrier operations issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 13, 1998, at 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Federal Aviation Administration, 
Conference Room 9 a/b/c, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC, 
20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, Office of Rulemaking, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
9685.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to be held on August 13, 1998. The agenda for this meeting will include 
status reports on the All Weather Operations Working Group and 
discussion of Advisory Circular 120-29, the Airplane Performance 
Working Group, and the formation of the working group on Reserve Duty/
Rest Requirements. Attendance is open to the interested public but may 
be limited by the space available. The Members of the public must make 
arrangements in advance to present oral statements at the meeting or 
may present written statements to the committee at any time. 
Arrangements may be made by contacting the person listed under the 
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, 
as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days 
before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 22, 1998.
Gary L. Davis,
Acting Assistant Executive Director for Air Carrier Operations, 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 98-20348 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6,548
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         16
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               5,706
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    9,284
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         8,109
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           8,030
<LOANS>                                        89,692
<ALLOWANCE>                                    922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,374
<DEPOSITS>                                     106,431
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            440
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       20,765
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 126,374
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4,321
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              571
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               422
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               5,314
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,510
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,511
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,803
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  304
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                319
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     319
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   119
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 5.76
<LOANS-NON>                                    195
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               602
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  52
<RECOVERIES>                                   68
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              922
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           922
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0



</TABLE>
No. 09-8448.

#### Homer Allen Millen, Petitioner v. Steve Upton, Warden.

559 U.S. 1010, 130 S. Ct. 1886,

176 L. Ed. 2d 371,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2666.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 221 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4916 

[Report No. 109–403] 

To authorize United States participation in, and appropriations for, the 

United States contribution to the first replenishment of the resources 

of the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2006 

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio (for herself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. 

MALONEY, and Mrs. BIGGERT) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

APRIL 4, 2006 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To authorize United States participation in, and appropriations for, the United States contribution to the first 

replenishment of the resources of the Enterprise for the 

Americas Multilateral Investment Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4916 RH 

1 SECTION 1. FIRST REPLENISHMENT OF THE RESOURCES 

2 OF THE ENTERPRISE FOR THE AMERICAS 

3 MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND. 

4 The Inter-American Development Bank Act (22 

5 U.S.C. 283 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 39. FIRST REPLENISHMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF 

8 THE ENTERPRISE FOR THE AMERICAS MUL9 TILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND. 

10 ‘‘(a) CONTRIBUTION AUTHORITY.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the 

12 Treasury may contribute on behalf of the United 

13 States $150,000,000 to the first replenishment of 

14 the resources of the Enterprise for the Americas 

15 Multilateral Investment Fund. 

16 ‘‘(2) SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.—The au17 thority provided by paragraph (1) may be exercised 

18 only to the extent and in the amounts provided for 

19 in advance in appropriations Acts. 

20 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPRO21 PRIATIONS.—For the United States contribution author22 ized by subsection (a), there are authorized to be appro23 priated not more than $150,000,000, without fiscal year 

24 limitation, for payment by the Secretary of the Treas25 ury.’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 221 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4916 

[Report No. 109

–403] 

A BILL 

To authorize United States participation in, and 

vestment Fund. the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Intion to the first replenishment of the resources of appropriations for, the United States contribuAPRIL 4, 2006 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS