alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# m8683.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.11.2017 C(2017) 7910 final To the notifying party Subject : Case M. 8683 - APOLLO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT / INTERTOYS HOLDING 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 25 October 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed conc entration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking Apollo Capital Management L.P. ( United States of America ) acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the whole of the undertaking Intertoys Holding B.V. (The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - Apollo: investment in companies and debt issued by companies active in various businesses throughout the world, by means of investment funds managed by the group. Examples of current investments include, inter alia, companies in the chemical, cruise line, hospital, security, financial services and glass packaging businesses. - Intertoys Group: retail sale of a broad range of traditional toys and an up-to-date selection of multimedia items and gifts via physical stores and online websites in the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium. 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 6 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 377 , 09.11.2017 , p. 23 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
EX PARTE Larry Wayne WHITEHEAD

CR-15-0311

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ARCHIE NED WILLIAMS, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 17-cr-00077-YGR

ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 53 

Based upon the representations of counsel in their joint stipulation filed on March 16, 2018 

(Dkt. No. 53) and on the record on March 16, 2018, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby 

ORDERS that the time period from May 4, 2018 to August 3, 2018, inclusive, is excluded pursuant 

to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 53. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2018 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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

KEVIN DALE LUHR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00686-EDL 

JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte presiding, and 

the issues have been duly heard and considered and a decision having been fully rendered,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that in accordance with the Court’s Order of March 

29, 2018, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2018

______________________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-01-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                           385,615
<SECURITIES>                                     363,541
<RECEIVABLES>                                    927,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                      98,253
<INVENTORY>                                      352,703
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,417,282
<PP&E>                                         1,087,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                   645,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,045,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,212,607
<BONDS>                                           41,033
<COMMON>                                              72
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,782,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,045,447
<SALES>                                        1,485,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,485,278
<CGS>                                            829,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,372,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   2,726
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  124,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                      39,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               84,696
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      84,696
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.85
        


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALICIA BECKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2345

[January 25, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 31-2015-CF000815-A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, and Alicia Becker, Chicago, Illinois.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. 

Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Latravis BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1529

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Q.K.B., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Tony Lamar CASTRO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3679

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this appeal filed pursuant to *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the judgment, sentences, and the order revoking Appellant's probation. However, we remand for the entry of a corrected probation revocation order that conforms to the trial court's oral pronouncement that revocation was based only upon Appellant's new law offenses. *See**Thomas v. State* , 255 So. 3d 997, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (affirming the revocation of probation and sentence but remanding for entry of a corrected revocation order that conformed *251to the trial court's oral pronouncement); *Sesco v. State* , 254 So. 3d 1196, 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (affirming the revocation of probation and sentence but remanding for the trial court to enter a corrected revocation order reflecting, consistent with its oral pronouncement, that the revocation was based only on the new law offenses); *Ross v. State* , 212 So. 3d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (affirming the revocation of probation and sentences but remanding for entry of a corrected revocation order that conformed to the trial court's oral pronouncement).

AFFIRMED but REMANDED for correction.

Lewis, Makar, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1




AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 3, dated as of February 3, 2009 (the “Amendment”), is between Brightpoint,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a New
York limited purpose trust company, as Rights Agent (the “Rights Agent”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent are parties to a Rights Agreement, dated as of
February 20, 1997, as amended on January 4, 1999 and April 12, 2004, (the “Rights Agreement”),
defining the terms of the Rights (as defined therein); and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, the Company desires to amend the
Rights Agreement as set forth below.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements
herein set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:



1. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 7




     Section 7(a) of the Rights Agreement is amended to accelerate the Final Expiration Date from
April 12, 2014 to February 27, 2009, so that such Section 7(a) is hereby amended to delete all
references to “April 12, 2014” and replace such date with “February 27, 2009.”



2. CONFORMING CHANGES.




     The Exhibits to the Rights Agreement shall be restated to reflect this Amendment, including
all conforming changes.



3. SEVERABILITY




     If any term, provision, covenant or restriction of this Amendment is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction or other authority to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the reminder of
the terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions of this Amendment shall remain in full force and
effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.



4. COUNTERPARTS




     This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts
shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together
constitute but one and the same instrument.



 









 





5. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT




     Except as expressly modified herein, the Rights Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the Company and the Rights Agent
as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	BRIGHTPOINT, INC.	 	 
	Attest:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Steven E. Fivel	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name:
	 	 	 	 	 	 

Name: Steven E. Fivel
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	 	 	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President and

General Counsel		 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER
& TRUST COMPANY, 

as Rights Agent	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name:
	 	 	 	 	 	 

Name:
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32(a)



                             TXU US Holdings Company
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO


      The  undersigned, T. L. Baker, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive of TXU US Holdings Company (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

  1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
      2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

  2.  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 12th day of August, 2004.




                                     /s/ T. L. Baker
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name:  T. L. Baker
                                   Title: Chairman of the Board, President
                                          and Chief Executive





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TXU US Holdings Company and will be retained by TXU US Holdings
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Richard MCCARTHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ihosvanny ALBEAR, Appellant, v. Louis M. HILLMAN-WALLER, as Curator of the Estate of Roberto Albear, Adriana Ulloa, and Royal Park Enterprises, LLC, Appellees.

No. 3D19-0130

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 12, 2019

Andrew M. Kassier, P.A., and Andrew M. Kassier, for appellant.

Armas Bertran Pieri, and J. Alfredo Armas, for appellee Adriana Ulloa.

Before SALTER, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.

***ON MOTION TO DISMISS***

PER CURIAM.

Ihosvanny Albear appeals a final judgment entered following a bench trial. Appellees move to dismiss on the basis that, because there is no transcript of the trial below, Albear cannot meet his burden to show error. We agree and affirm because the 15-page final judgment contains numerous factual findings and there is no record of the trial.1*See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal."); *see also**Cudeiro v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Fritz*, 99 So.3d 520, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (explaining *Starks v. Starks*, 423 So.2d 452, 453-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) as follows: "without a transcript of the hearing, the appellate court is unable to ascertain whether the lower court erred; noting that '[t]he appellant *691retains the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness attributed to a trial court's final judgment. Appellant's burden includes a demonstration of error from the *record* , which he must supply' " (quoting *Kauffmann v. Baker*, 392 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) )).

Affirmed.

1

Appellees allege in their motion to dismiss that the parties agreed to try the case without a court reporter "hoping for finality."
Donovan Anthony POWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Darieth CHILSOLM, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

Zachary Lawrence, pro hac vice

Lawrence Law Firm PLLC

598 E Main Street

Little Falls, NY 13365

202-468-9486

zach@zlawpllc.com

Joshua E. Matic (SBN 259070)

20651 Golden Springs Dr, # 817,

Walnut, CA 91789

646-389-4384

310-388-3047

joshuae@maticesq.com

Attorneys for Nonparty Principals

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs

Case No. 4:17-cv-0755-CW

v.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC.

Defendant

____________________________________

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 253 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 2
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

1

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Quint Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

NOTICE OF APPEAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Micheal Donovan,

1 Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore hereby appeal to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Judgment of this Court entered in

this action on February 2, 2023 (ECF Doc. No 249) and the underlying Orders entered on January

23, 2023 (ECF Doc. Nos. 246 & 247).

Dated: February 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

Washington, District of Columbia By: /s/Zachary Lawrence

Zachary Lawrence

Pro hac vice

Lawrence Law Firm PLLC

598 E. Main St.

Little Falls, NY 13365

202-468-9486

zach@zlawpllc.com

Attorneys for Micheal Donovan, Richard Moore,

and Evan Ajin

1 Mr. Donovan’s name has been inadvertently entered into the ECF system as “Michael Donovan.”

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 253 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 2
Dwayne Edward CUMMINGS, Jr., DOC #313629, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4909

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 11, 2015

Order 

August 11, 2015

152076(50)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

CONNER CHANNING MCCOWAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 152076

COA: 319475

Ingham CC: 13-000363-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant for leave to file 

an application for leave to appeal in excess of the page limit restriction is GRANTED. 

The 87-page application submitted on July 30, 2015, is accepted for filing.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED L UZ ESTRADA , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 1765 LT Case No. 2020

- 10226

- CIDL PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,

Appellee

. _______________________________/ Decision filed July 19, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County , Randell H. Rowe, I II , J udge. Brian J. L ee, o f Morgan & M organ, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Diane G

. Dewolf and Katherine E

. Giddings , of A kerman LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

C OHEN , HARRIS and NARDELLA , JJ., conc ur.
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

ANNA BROUNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00240-SK 

CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

Regarding Docket No. 138

The Court is advised that the parties have reached a tentative settlement of this case and 

expect to file for a dismissal with prejudice as soon as the settlement agreement is executed. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause of action is dismissed without prejudice; 

provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within sixty days, with proof 

of service thereof, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over, 

the foregoing order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to 

be set for trial. If no certification is filed, after passage of sixty days, the dismissal shall be with 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge
In re Karl Richard THORPE, petitioner.

No. 12-10139.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Gerald Kendall CHEATHAM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2298

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY LEE CHESTANG,

Defendant.

Case No.17-mj-70108-MAG-1 (SK)

Charging District's Case No.

2:06-0071-KJM

COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT

The defendant has been ordered to appear in the Eastern District of California

(Sacramento). 

The defendant may need an interpreter for this language: n/a.

The defendant: ( ) will retain an attorney.

(X) is requesting court-appointed counsel.

The defendant remains in custody after the initial appearance.

IT IS ORDERED: The United States Marshal must transport the defendant, together with 

a copy of this order, to the charging district and deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal 

for that district, or to another officer authorized to receive the defendant. The Marshal or officer 

of the charging district should immediately notify the United States Attorney and the Clerk of the 

Clerk for that district of the defendant's arrival so that further proceedings may be promptly 

scheduled. The Clerk of this district must promptly transmit the papers and any bail to the 

charging district.

Dated: January 27, 2017

_________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-mj-70108-MAG Document 4 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:05-cv-01396-MJJ Document 19 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 1