alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 307/3 De

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 307 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 483 December 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 307

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 483 December 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 307/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 307/2 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyester originating in Thailand | 2 |
| 2005/C 307/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 4 |
| 2005/C 307/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4050 — Goldman Sachs/Cinven/Ahlsell) (1) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 307/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 307/2

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyester originating in Thailand

2

2005/C 307/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

4

2005/C 307/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4050 — Goldman Sachs/Cinven/Ahlsell) (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,216
<SECURITIES>                                     7,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (545)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,295
<PP&E>                                          14,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,081)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,738
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,130
<SALES>                                         21,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,750
<CGS>                                            4,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,742
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,836
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  6,102
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          48,475
<ALLOWANCES>                            7,554
<INVENTORY>                            30,025
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       80,062
<PP&E>                                 59,551
<DEPRECIATION>                          9,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        198,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  45,408
<BONDS>                               118,182
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             29,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          198,876
<SALES>                               306,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      306,093
<CGS>                                 243,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         279,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        9,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          789
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     14,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           991
<INCOME-TAX>                              395
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       596
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              596
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin MARTINEZ-VALDIOSERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30038.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 7, 2009.

*62Thomas John Hanlon, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Benjamin Martinez-Valdiosera appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Valdiosera contends that the district court committed error under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by enhancing his sentence beyond the two-year statutory maximum, because the temporal relationship between his prior removal and qualifying prior conviction was not alleged in the indictment, and he did not admit these facts pursuant to his guilty plea. We disagree. The indictment alleged the date of Martinez-Valdiosera’s removal, and the district court’s determination that the removal occurred after his prior conviction did not violate *Apprendi. See United States v. Calderon-Segura,*512 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2008); *United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d*748, 752-56 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### RUDD v. McCLEAN ARMS & ORDNANCE Co. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May, 1907.)

Action by Henry W. Rudd against the McClean Arms & Ordnance Company.

No opinion. See memorandum.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE

OF MARYLAND * COURT OF APPEALS 200 Harry S. Truman Pkwy, Ste. 300 * OF MARYLAND Annapolis, MD 21401 *

Petitioner, V.
JONATHAN KENNETH FRIEDLANDER • Misc. Docket AG
• No. 79
• September Term, 2016 Respondent. *********************************************** ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent, filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, and Respondent's acknowledgment therein that sufficient evidence exists to sustain allegations that he committed professional misconduct in violation of former Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 8.4(a) and (d), former Maryland Rules 16- 606.1 and 16-607, in effect at the time of the conduct, and Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10 

## - 306, it is this 12th day of .TAnlipryi 20 17, ORDERED, that Respondent, Jonathan Kenneth Friedlander, be and hereby is Disbarred from the practice of law in this State, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED, that, the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Jonathan Kenneth Friedlander from the register of attorneys in the Court, notify Respondent of the filing of this Order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-742(a)(I), and comply with the notice provisions set for the in Maryland Rule 19-761(b). /s/ Clayton Greene Jr. Senior Judge

EAST\ 138867406.1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell J. Reardon, 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 requirements of Section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and the consolidated results of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: April 15, 2005


                                                    \s\ Russell J. Reardon
                                                    ----------------------
                                                    Russell J. Reardon
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of Form 10-K
or as a separate disclosure statement.
Document

Exhibit 10.2


PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL


HAND DELIVERY








To: Jacek Olczak                                    Lausanne, April 28, 2021






Dear Jacek, 


We are pleased to confirm your promotion, effective May 5, 2021, to the position of Chief Executive Officer.


Your gross base salary will be:     CHF 1,350,000.-- annually        CHF 103,846.15 monthly


Your new grade will be 28.
 
You will continue to be eligible to participate in the Incentive Compensation (“IC”) and Equity Award Programs, which are administered at the sole discretion of the Compensation and Leadership Development Committee of the Board of Directors of Philip Morris International Inc. pursuant and subject to the terms of the 2017 Performance Incentive Plan (or any similar plan adopted from time to time). 


Your annual IC and Equity Award targets that assume 100 individual performance ratings and a PMI company performance rating of 100 for the IC award will be increased as follows:
						
		Target % (1)

	Incentive Compensation Award	to     200% of annual base salary

	Equity Award	to    600% of annual base salary (40% in the form of Restricted Stock Units and 60% in the form of Performance Share Units)





It is agreed and understood that this letter will for all purposes be regarded as a continuation of your employment with Philip Morris Products S.A.


All other conditions relating to your employment with Philip Morris Products S.A. remain as stated in your employment contract and, if applicable, in any subsequent amendments.


We would like to take this opportunity to wish you continued success and satisfaction.


Yours sincerely,


PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.


						
	/s/ CHARLES BENDOTTI	/s/ ANDRÉ CALANTZOPOULOS
	Charles Bendotti	André Calantzopoulos
	Global Head of People & Culture	Chief Executive Officer




												
	Read and approved:	/s/ JACEK OLCZAK
	Date:
	5/5/2021

	

	(Jacek Olczak)
	

	




(1)  The Incentive Compensation and Equity Award Programs are discretionary and do not obligate the Company to make an award nor entitle employees to receive an award. Eligibility to participate in the Programs does not guarantee receipt of an award and receiving an annual award does not guarantee receipt of an award in the future. Any awards that are made may be higher or lower than the targets mentioned above. Targets may be amended at the discretion of the Compensation and Leadership Development Committee of the Board of Directors at any time without prior notice. 
Philip Morris Products S.A., Avenue de Rhodanie 50, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland  
T:+41 (58) 242 00 00, F: +41 (58) 242 01 01
#### Andre Dasent, Appellant, v William S. Schechter, M.D., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[944 NYS2d 556]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about April 19, 2011, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered March 28, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants-respondents ’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting detailed expert affidavits averring that the treatment of decedent did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice *(see Ramirez v Cruz,*92 AD3d 533, 533 [2012]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His expert opined that defendants should have known that decedent had an extreme sensitivity to the anesthesia agent that was used during decedent’s open-heart surgery, because he had experienced a bad reaction to a much smaller amount of the same drug in a prior heart catheterization procedure. However, the decedent’s medical records contain no evidence of a “bad reaction” during the prior procedure; rather, the records indicate that the decedent tolerated the procedure well. Thus, plaintiffs expert’s affidavit, which contradicts the record, is insufficient to defeat defendants’ motions for summary judgment *(see Fleming v Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc., 70*AD3d 422 [2010]). Plaintiffs expert’s opinion that there must have been a bad reaction, since a vasodilator was administered during the procedure, is speculative and unsupported by the evidence *(Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp.,*99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.
# C_2019295EN.01007901.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/79

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB

(Case T-468/19)

(2019/C 295/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.

---
Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Regent Assisted Living, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-61239, 333-12159, and 333-12157) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-55769)
of Regent Assisted Living, Inc. of our report dated February 13, 1998, relating
to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows of Regent Assisted Living, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report
on Form 10-K of Regent Assisted Living, Inc.


                                        KPMG LLP


Portland, Oregon
April 21, 2000
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 Executive Officer Compensation Summary
August 3, 2006
     
    
    Mr. Paul. The Committee made no changes to the base salary of Mr. Paul, which
remains at $457,000.
    
    Mr. Schmidt. The Committee made no changes to Mr. Schmidts base salary, which
remains at $320,000. The Committee approved a cash bonus for Mr. Schmidt of up to a
maximum of 100% of his base salary if Company growth goals are achieved. The
measurement period for calculating the bonuses payable to Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Minch
under the Incentive Bonus Plan is the period beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30,
2007. If the Company growth goals are met, the bonus will be paid following the end of
the measurement period. The Companys growth level will be calculated by averaging the
percentage change in revenue and operating profit over the measurement period as
compared with the results for the preceding period. In addition, the Committee granted
restricted stock awards to Mr. Schmidt in April 2006 and July 2006 of 6,313 and 4,241
shares of common stock, respectively (both of which awards are subject to a four year
vesting period, vesting 25% per year beginning one year from the date of the initial
award).
    
    Ms. Minch. The Committee approved a 3% increase in Ms. Minchs base salary. As a
result of this increase, Ms. Minchs base salary is now $170,753. The Committee also
approved a cash bonus for Ms. Minch of up to a maximum of 60% of her base salary. The
amount of the bonus will be determined and paid on the basis described above. In
addition, the Committee granted restricted stock awards to Ms. Minch in April 2006 and
July 2006 of 6,131 and 4,618 shares of common stock, respectively (both of which awards
are subject to a four year vesting period, vesting 25% per year beginning one year from
the date of the initial award).
    
    Ms. Paul. The Committee made no changes to the base salary of Ms. Paul, which
remains at $175,000.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 274 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 274

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that funding for the Federal Pell 
   Grant program should not be cut in any deficit reduction package.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2011

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Franken, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. 
  Gillibrand, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Brown of Ohio) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
               on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that funding for the Federal Pell 
   Grant program should not be cut in any deficit reduction package.

Whereas the Federal Pell Grant program has been the cornerstone of the Federal 
        financial aid system since grants were first distributed in the 1970s;
Whereas during 2010, almost 9,000,000 students in the United States received a 
        Federal Pell Grant;
Whereas the number of students receiving a Federal Pell Grant increased by 26 
        percent between the 2008-2009 academic year and the 2009-2010 academic 
        year;
Whereas when Federal Pell Grants were first distributed in 1976, such grants 
        paid for 72 percent of the average cost of a 4-year public institution 
        of higher education while in 2011 the maximum Federal Pell Grant covers 
        only 34 percent of such cost;
Whereas 61 percent of students who received a Federal Pell Grant during the 
        2008-2009 academic year came from households that earned less than 
        $30,000 and 99 percent of such students came from households that earned 
        $50,000 a year or less;
Whereas during the 2008-2009 academic year, 68 percent of students receiving a 
        Federal Pell Grant were 21 years of age or older;
Whereas the unemployment rate for individuals with a baccalaureate degree is 
        consistently half of the unemployment rate for individuals with only a 
        secondary school diploma; and
Whereas education is a vital part of ensuring that the United States workforce 
        is prepared for the 21st Century and the United States remains the world 
        leader in innovation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that funding for the 
Federal Pell Grant program should not be cut in any deficit reduction 
package.
                                 <all>
```