alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# m8619.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.9.2017 C(2017) 6526 final To the notifying party: Subject : Case M.8619 - BRIDGEPOINT / MILLER HOMES Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 28 August 2 017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed conc entration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking Bridgepoint Group Limited ("Bridgepoint", UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Miller Homes Holdings Limited ("Miller Homes", UK), by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Bridgepoint: independently owned private equity group focused on investing in established European middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors, including consumer/retail, business services, industrials, financial services, healthcare, media and technology. - for Miller Homes: residential real estate company active across the UK. 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 ( b ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 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 and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
( S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER 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 L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 294 , 05 . 09.2017 , p. 4 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRANDON JONES,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-00034-JSW-2 (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 

CORRESPONDENCE

On June 25, 2019, the Court received correspondence from Mr. Jones. In order to preserve 

the document in the record, the Court orders that the correspondence be filed under seal. The 

Court directs that this document shall be served on defense counsel. The Court will take no action 

on this document or on any documents submitted by Mr. Jones himself. Defense counsel is 

directed to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Jones.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cr-00034-JSW Document 463 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENT BERSON, Individually and On

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1027 SBA

(Related to Case No. 05-1615)

ORDER

On May 10, 2005, Plaintiff Frank Whiting ("Whiting") filed a Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel ("Whiting's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff")

[Docket No. 10]. Whiting's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff is scheduled for a July 26, 2005 hearing.

On June 30, 2005, the parties submitted a stipulation requesting a continuance of the July 13, 2005

Case Management Conference to an unspecified date following the appointment of Lead Plaintiff.

For good cause showing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Case Management Conference originally scheduled for July

13, 2005 at 3:15 p.m. is VACATED. The parties shall appear for a telephonic Case Management

Conference on Thursday, September 29, 2005 at 3:15 p.m. The parties shall meet and conferprior to

the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later

than ten (10) days priorto the Case Management Conference. Lead Plaintiff shall be responsible forfiling the

statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637-

3559 at the above indicated date and time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: July 1, 2005 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01615-SBA Document 7 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6722** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROMEO A. MARQUIS, a/k/a Little Tony, a/k/a Tony Robinson, a/k/a Michael A. Blair , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00666

- JFA

- 1 )

Submitted : November 27, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Romeo A. Marquis , Appellant Pro Se. Tara L. McGregor, Jane Barrett Taylor , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Romeo A. Marquis appeals the district court ’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm the district court’s order
. See United States v. Marquis , No. 3:07

- cr - 00666

- JFA

- 1 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof The Wornick Company (the “Company”) for the thirteen weeks ended October 1,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Brian A. Lutes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 15, 2005 |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
|                         |   |
|                         | By:    | /s/ Brian A. Lutes |   |
|                         |   | Brian A. Lutes |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1473

___________

Joe Brasfield, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* 

v. * 

* .

State of Arkansas; Desha County, *

Arkansas; Skippy Leek; Sam Pope; *

Leo Bottom; Wayne Bottom Farm, Inc.; * Appeal from the United States

E. C. Tatum Farm, Inc.; Fred Pittman * District Court for the Eastern

Farm, Inc.; Willie Dean Tatum Farm, * District of Arkansas.

Inc.; Marion Gill; Martin Walt; David * 

Walt; Martin Lee Walt Farm, Inc.; * 

Glenn Lambert Farm, Inc.; Clyde *

Love Farm, Inc.; Don Smith; Joe *

Grayson; David Garrett; Wayne Beaty; *

Jean Ellington; United States of *

America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 30, 1997 

 Filed: January 14, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Joe Brasfield, Sr. appeals the district court&s orders dismissing his civil rights 1

complaint for failure to state a claim. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties& submissions, we agree Brasfield&s complaint fails to state a claim against any

of the named defendants. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Brasfield&s pending motions are denied as moot.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.80


                             TERMINATION AGREEMENT

        This Termination Agreement is made as of July 3, 1997, between DMX,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("DMX"), and DMX-Europe N.V., a Netherlands
corporation ("DMX-NV"). 

        WHEREAS, DMX and DMX-NV entered into the Trademark Agreement dated 
May 19, 1993 (the "Trademark Agreement");

        NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

        1.      The Trademark Agreement is terminated by mutual agreement of
DMX and DMX-NV pursuant to Section 25(b) of the Trademark Agreement.

        2.      Each of DMX and DMX-NV mutually release the other from any
obligation or liability under the Trademark Agreement.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this
Termination Agreement as of the date first set forth above.

                                        DMX Inc.,
                                        a Delaware corporation

        
                                        By /s/ JOANNE WENDY KIM
                                          ------------------------------
                                           Its 
                                              --------------------------

                                        DMX-Europe N.V.,
                                        a Netherlands corporation

                                        By /s/ LANCE THOMAS
                                          ------------------------------
                                           Its SOLE DIRECTOR 
                                              --------------------------

                                        DMX-Europe (UK) Limited,
                                        a United Kingdom Company

                                        By /s/ LANCE THOMAS
                                          ------------------------------
                                           Its SOLE DIRECTOR
                                              --------------------------
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 20, 2019

No. 04-19-00381-CV

IN RE J.O.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-01006

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating a mother’s parental

rights to her child. On August 28, 2019, appellant Wendy Langford, who is an intervenor, filed a 

motion to stay the trial court’s judgment pending appeal. In its order of termination, the trial 

court ordered: “Twenty days after judgement signed, CPS to process adoption in 40-90 days, 

unless appeal is filed.” Appellant argues: “If adoption is allowed to proceed during the pendency 

of this appeal, the appeal will be moot and irreparable harm will result.” Appellee the Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services responded in opposition to appellant’s motion on 

September 9, 2019. Appellee asserts in its response: “The trial court conditioned its order on the 

filing of an appeal and since the appellant has filed an appeal, the adoption should not proceed at 

this time.” Appellee further asserts: “The Department remains the child’s managing conservator 

and should maintain the status quo until after this Court reviews the trial court’s decision.” In 

light of the foregoing, we DENY appellant’s motion.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 21

                     Subsidiaries of Marcam Solutions, Inc.

         Unless otherwise noted, the Company owns, directly or indirectly, 100%
of the outstanding voting securities of the following corporations

                                                        Jurisdiction of
         Name                                           Incorporation
         ----                                           ---------------
GmbH Holdings Corporation                               Delaware

MaCam K.K.                                              Japan

Maincor Consulting Inc.                                 Canada

Marcam Argentina S.A.(1)                                Argentina

Marcam Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.                           Singapore

Marcam Australia Pty Limited                            Australia

Marcam do Brazil Sistemas Ltda.                         Brazil

Marcam Canada Corporation                               Canada

Marcam Canada Holding Corporation                       Canada

Marcam Europe Limited                                   United Kingdom

Marcam Europe Middle East & Africa S.a.r.l.             France

Marcam France S.a.r.l.                                  France

Marcam GmbH                                             Germany

Marcam International Sales Corporation                  Virgin Islands

Marcam Nederland B.V.                                   Holland

Marcam Securities Corporation                           Massachusetts

Marcam Solutions Ltd.                                   United Kingdom

Marcam UK Company                                       United Kingdom

ShawWare, Inc.                                          Oregon

------------------
(1)  1% owned by Gonzalo E. Caceres
LAZEAR MACK LLP 

ARTHUR W. LAZEAR, SB 083603 

2 MORGAN M. MACK, SB 212659 

435-14th Street, #1117 3 Oakland, CA 94612 

4 Telephone: (510) 735-6316 

Facsimile: (51 0) 545-4226 

Email: arthur@lazearmack.com, 

tnorgan(ci),lazearmack.com 

6 

5 

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KENNETH INGRAHAM 

8 MICHAEL A. FARBSTEIN (CA State Bar No. 1 07030) 

9 H. ANN LIROFF (CA State Bar No. 113180) 

FARBSTEIN & BLACKMAN, APC 

10 411 Borel A venue Suite 425 

San Mateo CA 94402 

Telephone: (650) 554-6200 

Facsimile: (650) 554-6240 11 

12 Email: maf@farbstein.com 

hal@farbstein.com 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Attorneys for 

FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY A~A 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH INGRAHAM, ) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3: 16-cv-000 12-SK 

Plaintiff, 

v. ) 

) 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS LAWSUIT 

WITH PREJUDICE and [PROPOSED] 

ORDER DISMISSING LAWSUIT WITH 

PREJUDICE 

22 FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY ) 

A~A ) 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendant. ) 

Stipulation to Dismiss Lawsuit with Prejudice 

Case No. 3: 16-CV-00012-SK 

) 

Before the Honorable Sallie Kim 

Case 3:17-cv-00012-SK Document 25 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 3
2017 / 07 / 26

Case 3:17-cv-00012-SK Document 25 Filed 07/27/17 Page 2 of 3
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

I2 

I3 

14 

I5 

I6 

I7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action and all claims 

filed herein are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without attorneys' fees or costs to either 

party. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:. _______ ----, 

Stipulation to Dismiss Lawsuit Prejudice 

Case No. 3: 16-CV-00012-SK 

SALLIE KIM 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3 

Case 3:17-cv-00012-SK Document 25 Filed 07/27/17 Page 3 of 3
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-00143 Conference Calendar

BENJAMIN FORSYTHE, Plaintiff-Petitioner,

versus JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL., Defendants-Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-94-CA-079

- - - - - - - - - - October 25, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Benjamin Forsythe, #521748, petitions this court for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Forsythe’s civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Subsequent to filing his petition in this court, Forsythe moved in the district court to have his complaint withdrawn. In light of the district court’s order granting Forsythe’s motion and dismissing his complaint, Forsythe’sNo. 96-00143 - 2 - interlocutory appeal is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
Exhibit 12.2 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick Flynn, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

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

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and 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 company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 18, 2013
Andrea ADAMS, et al. v. ALLIED SHIPYARD, INC. and the Gray Insurance Company

Megan St. Pierre, et al. v. Allied Shipyard, Inc.

Chris Griffin, et al. v. Allied Shipyard, Inc.

NO. 2017-CC-2077

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

*713Denied.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 237 

Approving of the sales of defense items to Israel notified to Congress on 

May 5, 2021. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2021 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. HAGERTY, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. 

JOHNSON, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Approving of the sales of defense items to Israel notified 

to Congress on May 5, 2021. 

Whereas, in the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 

et seq.), Congress reaffirmed that it is the policy of the 

United States to facilitate the common defense of the 

United States and friendly countries by entering into 

international arrangements with those countries through 

authorized sales of defense items; 

Whereas, in the Arms Export Control Act, Congress established that it is ‘‘the sense of the Congress that all such 

sales be approved only when they are consistent with the 

foreign policy interests of the United States’’; 

Whereas section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 

U.S.C. 2776(c)) requires that the President transmit to 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 237 IS 

the leaders and relevant committees of Congress certifications for proposed licenses for the export of certain defense items to Israel in the amount of $100,000,000 or 

more; 

Whereas, on May 5, 2021, the Department of State transmitted to Congress certifications pursuant to section 

36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act for exports to 

Israel of defense items valued in excess of $800,000,000, 

including munitions and defensive systems; and 

Whereas, on January 19, 2021, in testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, now-Secretary 

of State Blinken emphasized that the incoming Presidential administration’s ‘‘commitment to Israel’s security 

is sacrosanct and this is something that [now-President 

Biden] feels very strongly’’ and that ‘‘the foundation of 

our relationship is support for Israel’s security’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) finds that the sales of defense items to 

3 Israel notified to Congress by the Department of 

4 State on May 5, 2021, are consistent with the for5 eign policy interests of the United States; and 

6 (2) approves of those sales. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS