alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# m8484.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.7.2017 C(2017) 4897 final To the Notifying Parties Subject : Case M. 8484 - GASUNIE / VOPAK / OILTANKING / JV 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 14 June 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which which the undertakings Gasunie LNG Holding B.V, a subsidiary of N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie (' Gasunie ', of the Netherlands) , Vopak LNG Holding B.V., a subsidiary of Koninlijke Vopak N.V. (' Vopak ', of the Netherlands) , and Oiltanking GmbH (' Oiltanking ' of Germany), a subsidiary of Marquard & Bahls AG ('M&B') acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created company (the "Joint Venture") constituting a joint venture by way of a purchase of shares. 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: – Gasunie : European gas infrastructure company owning and operating the Dutch transmission system operator and a liquefied natural gas ('LNG') terminal in the Netherlands; – Vopak : an independent tank storage provider, operating two LNG import terminals in the Netherlands and in Mexico; - Oiltanking : independant storage services provider for petroleum products, chemical gases and dry bulk. M&B is otherwise not active in LNG-related markets; - the Joint Venture: will own and operate an LNG terminal in the North of Germany. 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 (Signed)
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 200, 23.6.2017, p. 27 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Exhibit 32.2  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 of Our Glass, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  August 11, 2008 /s/ Cosmo Palmieri Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1
------------

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
------------------------------------------------

I, Tor Olav Troim, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Golden State Petro (IOM
     1-A) PLC;

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

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

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
     prepared;
b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
     the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

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

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
     annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
     controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
     controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
     any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
     weaknesses.

Date: June 27, 2006

/s/ Tor Olav Troim
-------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
Director
Jason Darryl HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 29, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01844]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science & Engineering; 
Cancellation of Meeting

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice; cancellation of meeting date.

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

    The National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal 
Register January 16, 2025, in FR Doc. 2025-00982 at 90 FR 4806, 
concerning a meeting of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science 
& Engineering. The meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 13, 2025, 
at 1 p.m. (ET) is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Crystal Robinson 
[email protected] or 703-292-8687.

    Dated: January 23, 2025.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2025-01844 Filed 1-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
Michael D. NORTHCUTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2625

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

        About FDA

FDA Commissioner Home
          About FDA
          FDA CommissionerAbout FDA FDA Commissioner
  	
        Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintRobert M. Califf M.D., MACC
Robert M. Califf M.D. was named Commissioner of Food and Drugs on February 17, 2022.
As Commissioner, Dr. Califf oversees the full breadth of the FDA portfolio and execution of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other applicable laws. This includes assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices; the safety and security of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation; and the regulation of tobacco products. **Read full bio**

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      02/17/2022FDA Commissioner
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 94 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 94 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 5
November 2, 2007 

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 94 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 94 Filed 11/02/07 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 94 Filed 11/02/07 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 10.7

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                            ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT



        This Amendment to Administrative Agreement (the "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of the 1st day of July, 2003, by and between EMT Corp., an
Indiana corporation ("EMT") and EFS Inc., an Indiana corporation ("EFS").

        WHEREAS, EMT and EFS entered into an Administrative Agreement dated May
15, 1998 (the "Administrative Agreement"), pursuant to which EFS agreed to
provide certain administrative services to EMT in consideration of a monthly
administrative services fee equal to the fair value of such services but not to
exceed $85,000 per month;

        WHEREAS, in December 2001, EMT and EFS modified the administrative
services fee payable under the Administrative Agreement; and

        WHEREAS, EMT and EFS wish to execute this agreement setting forth such
modification.

        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

        1.   Paragraph 6 of the Administrative Agreement is hereby amended to
read it its entirety as follows:

               6. COMPENSATION OF ADMINISTRATOR.

               In compensation for the personnel and administrative services and
               office facilities provided by Administrator hereunder, Issuer
               shall pay to Administrator a monthly administrative services fee
               equal to 0.0083% of the outstanding principal balance of EMT's
               student loans as of each month end. Fees not paid by the Issuer
               within ten (10) days of receipt of the invoice shall be subject
               to a late fee of 1.5% per month of the amount past due.



<PAGE>


        In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date first written above.

                                     EMT CORP.


                                     By:   /s/ Jim Kruger
                                           -------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Jim Kruger
                                           -------------------------------------
                                     Title: Vice President
                                            ------------------------------------


                                     EFS SERVICES, INC.


                                     By: /s/ Mike Dunlap
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Mike Dunlap
                                           -------------------------------------
                                     Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                            ------------------------------------
#### In re: Dr. Simon BANKS, J.D., Petitioner.

No. 04-1417.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 18, 2004.

Dr. Simon Banks, J.D., Petitioner pro se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*905Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Simon Banks, J.D., petitions this court for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to stay proceedings. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987) (citing *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). It is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. *Id.*Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Catawba Indian Tribe,*973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and undisputable. *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

We find Banks has not shown he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Insofar as the petition for writ of mandamus may have sought other forms of relief, we deny those requests. We also deny his motion for an injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
STATE of Louisiana v. Glen PAYNE

NO. 2019-KA-0150

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

JUNE 12, 2019

Katherine M. Franks, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 220, Madisonville, LA 70447, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH, Donna Andrieu, CHIEF OF APPEALS, ORLEANS PARISH, Kyle Daly, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE/APPELLEE

(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Rosemary Ledet )

Judge Rosemary Ledet

The defendant, Glen Payne, seeks review of his corrected sentence, imposed by the district court pursuant to *Miller v. Alabama* , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

**PROCEDURAL HISTORY**

In 1984, Mr. Payne was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. At the time of the murder, Mr. Payne was a juvenile. After the United States Supreme Court's decision *Montgomery v. Louisiana* , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), which held *Miller* to be retroactive, Mr. Payne filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. After a hearing, the district court granted Mr. Payne's motion and resentenced him to life imprisonment with the benefit of parole.1 Mr. Payne moved for and was granted an out-of-time appeal.

**DISCUSSION**

In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Payne contends that "[t]he record does not contain either a minute entry for the [re]sentencing proceeding or the Uniform Commitment Order required by [La.] C.C[r].P. art. 892" and that the absence of these documents from the record "will adversely impact Mr. Payne's right to be immediately considered for parole if other conditions have been met."

During the pendency of this appeal, however, the State, with the consent of Mr. Payne's appellate counsel, appeared before the district court and requested that the court create a minute entry and a uniform commitment order reflecting that the district court had previously resentenced Mr. Payne to life imprisonment with the benefit of parole. The district court granted the State's request and supplemented the record on appeal accordingly.2 The assignment of error is, thus, moot.

*1221***DECREE***

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Payne's sentence is affirmed.

**AFFIRMED**

1

At the time, La. R.S. 15:574.4, which governs parole eligibility for juvenile defendants convicted of murder before *Miller* , provided for parole eligibility after thirty-five years. *See* Acts 2016, No. 509, § 3. After the district court resentenced Mr. Payne, the Legislature amended La. R.S. 15:574.4 to provide for parole eligibility after twenty-five years. *See* La. R.S. 15:574.4(G). *See* Acts 2017, No. 280, § 3.

2

*See* La. C.Cr.P. art. 916(2) (conferring on district courts jurisdiction to "[c]orrect an error or deficiency in the record" during the pendency of an appeal). Consistent with La. R.S. 15:574.4(G), both documents reflect that Mr. Payne is parole-eligible after serving twenty-five years of his sentence.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00806-CR

Roger SALDANA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-08-00031-CRF

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A supplemental clerk’s record containing a Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal 

for count one and count two has been filed. Both certifications indicate this case “is a pleabargain case, but matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial and not 

withdrawn, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” The supplemental clerk’s record contains 

rulings on appellant’s motions to suppress. 

Leticia Escamilla, the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the 

reporter’s record, filed a Notification of Late Record asking for additional time in which to file 

her record(s). The request is GRANTED and the reporter’s record is due no later than March 9, 

2017.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 6th day of March, 2017.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IDERIA WAYNE SMITH, 00607161, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:06-CV-0288-H

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Correctional ) 

Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States

Magistrate Judge, filed on February 2, 2007, and Petitioner’s Objections and Motion to Show Cause

to the Magistrate’s Findings, filed on February 14, 2007. 

The Court has made the required independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in

this case; the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and Petitioner’s Objections. Having

done so, the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are ADOPTED as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court, and Petitioner’s

Objections are OVERRULED.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Signed this 15 day of February, 2007. th

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00288-H Document 16 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
M.J., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3425

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Kenneth Edward FELIPE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 15, 2019

Kenneth Edward Felipe, Jr., Pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ, Concur.