alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008273EN.01000501.xml

| 28.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5178 — OEP/Pfleiderer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 273/02)

On 17 October 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5178. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5178. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
EXHIBIT 10.15



	 
	
1








	





 



 

	 
	
2








	





 



 

	 
	
3








	





 



 

	 
	
4








	





 



 

	 
	
5








	





 



 

	 
	
6








	





 



 

 

7
[No. 38488-1-I.

Division One.

May 27, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Christopher Mitten, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-8-06879-2, Anthony P. Wartnik, J., entered April 16, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

5 UNKNOWN CIM CORRECTIONAL

OFFICERS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-57237

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01625-JAK-CFE

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jesse L. Youngblood, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging cruel and

unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

FILED

AUG 05 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-57237

an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to serve, Puett v.

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990), and for failure to comply with a

court order, Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We vacate and

remand.

Dismissal of Youngblood’s action for failure to effect service was premature

as Youngblood should have been given an opportunity to identify the defendants

through limited discovery. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.

1980) (holding that where a plaintiff is unaware of the identity of alleged

defendants, “plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify

the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the

identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds”); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (permitting third party subpoenas); Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(d) (prohibiting discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference except “when

authorized . . . by court order”). 

To the extent that the district court dismissed Youngblood’s action without

prejudice for failure to comply with a court order, the district court abused its

discretion because the court failed to consider less drastic alternatives. See

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing factors to

consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order and explaining
3 12-57237

that warning of dismissal for failure to comply prior to disobedience of the court

order did not constitute consideration of less drastic alternatives); Ferdik, 963 F.2d

at 1260 (“[D]ismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed

in extreme circumstances.”). 

Youngblood’s “application in support of summons/complaint,” submitted on

July 1, 2013, is denied without prejudice to renewal before the district court on

remand.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
#### Samuel SOMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, District Attorney Thomas Spotta, ADA Grazia DiVincenzo, Andrew A. Crecca, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-2109-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2009.

*661Samuel Sommer, Liberty, New York, pro se.

Christine Malafi (Arlene S. Zwilling on the brief), for defendants-appellees County of Suffolk, District Attorney Thomas Spot-ta, ADA Grazia DiVincenzo, Hauppauge, New York; Andrew M. Cuomo (Oren L. Zeve on the brief) for Andrew A. Crecca, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JOHN F. KEENAN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable John F. Keenan, District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Samuel Sommer appeals from the judgment of the district court granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss Sommer’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The defendants-appellees assert that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

This Court reviews *de novo*a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. *See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. *6622002); *see also Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Even construing Sommer’s complaint liberally and accepting its factual allegations as true, an independent review shows that the district court properly dismissed Sommer’s complaint because (1) qualified immunity shielded defendant-appellee DiVincenzo from suit, (2) Sommer failed to allege personal involvement on the pai’t of defendant-appellee Spotta, (3) as to defendant-appellee County of Suffolk, Sommer failed to allege that any allegedly unconstitutional actions were part of a municipality-wide practice or custom; and (4) Judge Crecca was shielded from suit by the doctrine of absolute immunity. Moreover, as Judge Crecca argues on appeal, Sommer’s suit against Judge Crecca in his official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. *See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents,*528 U.S. 62, 73, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000); *Ying Jing Gan v. City of N.Y.,*996 F.2d 522, 529 (2d Cir.1993).

As the district court observed, much litigation would have been obviated if Suffolk County had given appellant the autopsy report he seeks. We are not ordering, but suggesting, that the County do so.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 21

- 00565

- CR John Anthony SCHARRINGHAUSEN , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CR2612 Honorable Velia J. Meza , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Beth Watkins , Justice Sitting: Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delive red and Filed: June 28, 2023
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED ; AFFIRMED Appellant John Anthony Scharringhausen entered a plea of not guilty at the beginning of his murder trial . After the State rested, Scharringhausen changed his plea to no contest and the trial court found the evidence sufficient to substantiate the plea . The trial court sentenced Scharringhausen to a term of forty years’ confinement. After sentencing, Scharrin ghausen filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. Scharringhausen then filed a motion for new trial on the grounds that he was harmed by relying on his trial counsel’s judgment in changing his plea

.04

- 21

- 00565

- CR

- 2

- Scharringhausen’s court

- appoint ed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Scharringhausen with a copy of the brief and informe d him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

– 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Scharringhausen did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Scharringhausen wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Scharringhausen must either retain an attorney to file a peti tion for discretionary review or Scharringhausen must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely m otion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
req uirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.4.

Beth Watkins , Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
**Exhibit31.2**

 

I, David R. Brown, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Mercantile Bancorp;

 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The small businessissuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.  The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  | May 14, 2004            |   | /s/  DAVID R. BROWN |   |
|-------------|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|        | David R. Brown          |
|        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.2

                   Written Description of Loan by Slav Serghei

During the period from April 18, 2014  (Inception) to October 31, 2014, our sole
director has loaned to the Company $5,000.  He has agreed to loan up to $25,000.
The loan is unsecured, non-interest bearing and due on demand.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs





- Molecular Plant Pathology Main Page
- MPPL retired scientists
- Pseudomonas kuykendallii - new!
- 'Candidatus Phytoplasma pruni' - new!
- MPPL's Retired Scientists
- Spiroplasma kunkelii
- Phytoplasma Resource Center
- Phytoplasma classification database
- Grapevine Yellows
- Xylella fastidiosa
- viroids
- Potato spindle tuber viroid
- viruses
- Potato Yellow vein virus
- Beet mosaic virus
- peach
- sugarbeet root maggot
- citrus
- Grapes
- Alfalfa
- plant-bacterial recognition

blaineheadline bar  ***What is sugarbeet***.......................................... Sugar is mostin what we eat CakeCookies An image from Wordpress: TABLE  "FRUITS" "SUGAR" "FRUITS" LocationPercentageIdaho**50%**New York**50%**Return to top
            Last Modified:
8/13/2016

    

    
    Connect with ARSSign up

    
    ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6012** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERIC GILES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00203

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : May 13, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eric Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Giles appeals the district court’ s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial, which Giles filed
pro se . We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in either of the identified bases for the district court’s ruling
. See United States v. Robinson , 627 F.3d 941, 948 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Giles , No. 3 :0 9

– cr – 00 203

– RJC

- DCK

– 1 ( W.D.N .C. Sept. 15, 2015 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2403

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2005

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetone.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROACETONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.09.10 1-Chloro-2-propanone (CAS 

No. 78–95–5) (provided for 

in subheading 2914.70.90) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 2403 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2368 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for immediate implementation of full concurrent receipt for retired members of the Armed Forces 

who have a service-connected disability of both military retired pay paid 

by reason of their years of military service and disability compensation 

from the Department of Veterans Affairs paid by reason of their disability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2005 

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for immediate implementation of full concurrent receipt for retired 

members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability of both military retired pay paid by 

reason of their years of military service and disability 

compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs 

paid by reason of their disability. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2368 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Immediate and Full 

3 Repeal of the Disabled Veterans Tax Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL CONCUR5 RENT RECEIPT. 

6 (a) REVISIONS TO FISCAL YEAR 2004 AMEND7 MENTS.—Section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking the sec11 ond sentence; and 

12 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘50 per13 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘10 percent’’; 

14 (2) by striking subsection (c); and 

15 (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraphs (3) 

16 and (4). 

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(1) The heading for 

18 such section is amended to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘§ 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also 

20 eligible for veterans’ disability compensa21 tion: concurrent payment of retired pay 

22 and veterans’ disability compensation’’. 

23 (2) The item relating to that section in the table of 

24 sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is 

25 amended to read as follows: 
3 

•HR 2368 IH 

‘‘1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for veterans’ disability compensation: concurrent payment of retired pay and 

veterans’ disability compensation.’’. 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of the first 

3 month beginning on or after the date of the enactment 

4 of this Act and shall apply with respect to payments for 

5 months beginning on or after that day. 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth C. McDonald, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weiss-man, J.), rendered December 17,1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised upon appeal. Counsel is granted leave to withdraw as counsel (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### Edith Salm, Appellant, v Edward A. Sammito, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), entered August 20, 1984, as denied her motion for summary judgment against defendant Sammito.

Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to defendant Sammito. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to defendant Sammito.

*845Since plaintiff’s contract with defendant Sammito was subject to a lease containing a right of first refusal at the same price and on the same terms, the tenant’s exercise of that right by execution of an identical contract made plaintiff’s contract void and unenforceable. The fact that the terms of the sale changed somewhat at closing does not reinstate plaintiff’s contract *(see, Bullock v Cutting,*155 App Div 825).

Furthermore, since plaintiff was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the lease, she may not use it to enforce her contract right *(see, Flemington Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Domler Leasing Corp.,*65 AD2d 29, *affd*48 NY2d 678). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Neihoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.