alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010107EN.01000101.xml

| 27.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5728 — Credit Agricole/Société Générale Asset Management)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 107/01

On 22 December 2009, 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5728. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5728. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### In the Matter of David Garcia, Appellant, v State of New York Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Respondent.

Submitted January 16, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,144,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,132,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,378
<INVENTORY>                                  2,048,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,304,475
<PP&E>                                         315,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,750,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          646,253
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,814
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,071,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,750,755
<SALES>                                        788,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               788,960
<CGS>                                          453,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  901,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (462)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (530,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (530,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (530,984)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE NET LOSS POSITION OF THE COMPANY, THE BASIC NET LOSS PER COMMON
SHARE IS THE SAME AS THE DILUTED NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE. NET LOSS PER SHARE
IS COMPUTED BASED ON THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK
OUTSTANDING DURING THE YEAR.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Order filed March 3 , 20 2 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00 266

- CV

____________ LARRY JOHNS , Appellant

V.
CARL R. GRANTOM AND LEIGH ANN GRANTOM , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 42908



### ORDER
When this case was reinstated on December 30, 2021, appellant was ordered to file his brief by January 31, 2022. On appellant’s motion, he was subsequently granted an extension to February 14, 2022 to file his brief. However, as of the date of this order, no brief or further motion to extend time has been filed. Accordingly,

u nless appellant file s a brief with this court on or before March 24 , 202 2 , the court
will dis miss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
## NUMBER 13 -23-00349-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CARY D. CANTWELL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras 1

Relator Cary D. Cantwell filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court has failed in its ministerial duty to rule on relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus. In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2 both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fail s to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator ’ s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show hims elf entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record . See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3 (governing the form and contents of a petition in an original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief ). Further, the relator must file a record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record) ; In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Rangel , 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2019, orig. proceeding )

.3 The Court, having examine d and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the lack of a record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b ). Delivered and filed on the 8 th day of August, 2023.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Hempt Bros., Inc. 

Under Purchase Order No. AMMO RD 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 59923 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Michael L. Bangs, Esq. 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Bangs Law Office, LLC 

Camp Hill, PA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Lawrence P. Gilbert, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 

On 6 April 2015, appellant, Hempt Bros., Inc. (Hempt), filed this appeal from a 

contracting officer's 4 February 2015 final decision. On 11May2015, the Board 

ordered that the parties address whether the Board possessed jurisdiction to entertain 

the appeal. In response, the government argued that no contract existed with appellant 

and, at best, appellant may be a subcontractor for providing services. Thus, no privity 

exists between Hempt and the government. Also, in response on 10 June 2015, 

Hempt, through counsel, stated: 

Hempt had no intention of presenting a formal 

"claim" under this administrative process to the contracting 

officer and its letter of January 12, 2015 [seeking payment 

of $13,213.81] was never intended to be as such .... 

Hempt does not believe that the matters at 

issue ... should be subject to the Armed Services Board of 

Contract Appeals. Hempt believes that [the government] 

erroneously invoked this appeal process and it should not 

continue. 

Hempt believes that the proper decision in this 

matter is that the Armed Services Board of Contract 
Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter in that it is 

not an appeal of the contracting officer's decision at all. 

On 27 August 2015, the Board ordered that by 4 September 2015, the parties 

show cause why, in view ofHempt's 10 June 2015 statements, the appeal should not 

be considered withdrawn, and why, therefore, the appeal should not be dismissed 

without prejudice. On 1 September 2015, the government responded that the appeal 

should be withdrawn, and that it did not oppose dismissal with or without prejudice. 

Appellant has not responded to the order to show cause. In view of Hempt's 10 June 

2015 statements, we find that the appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal 

is dismissed from the Board's docket, without prejudice. 

Dated: 3 November 2015 

I concur 

/~~ /./ / 

~~~~~&---

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administ ative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

/·) -~---

RICJ~~CKLEFORD Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59923, Appeal ofHempt 

Bros., Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

.GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (a) Arbor
Software Corporation condensed consolidated balance sheets and condensed
consolidated statements of income and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such (b) financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,276
<SECURITIES>                                    26,743
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (650)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,443
<PP&E>                                          10,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,395)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,450
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,570
<SALES>                                         12,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,474
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (57)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (809)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,898
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
USGS 11509250 - ADY CANAL ABOVE LOWER KLAMATH NWR, NEAR WORDEN, ORLatitude: 42.004Longitude: -121.826Elevation: 4075.28

USGS 11509250 - ADY CANAL ABOVE LOWER KLAMATH NWR, NEAR WORDEN, OR
#### Roger Davis et al., Appellants, v Board of Education of the Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and for declaratory and injunctive relief, *inter alia,*to declare void a referendum held pursuant to Education Law § 402 authorizing the sale of a former school, and to prohibit the respondent from taking any action pursuant to the referendum to sell the school, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered November 29, 1985, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In February 1985 the Board of Education of the HewlettWoodmere Union Free School District agreed to sell approxi*535mately 4.5 acres of land containing the former Woodmere South Junior High School for the sum of $3,250,000. Darren Equities, Ltd., the purchaser, proposed to construct either privately owned, nonsubsidized senior citizen housing or condominium or cooperative housing with a 54-unit maximum on the site. The contract was conditioned upon the Town of Hempstead’s consent to a zoning change. The sale and the proposed uses were put before the voters of the district pursuant to Education Law § 402, and on April 2, 1985, the voters approved of the sale of the property for condominium development by a vote of 1,589 in favor and 1,356 against.

The petitioners contend that the Board of Education was obligated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act *(see,*ECL 8-0101 *et seq.)*to prepare an environmental impact statement before entering into the contract of sale and conducting the referendum. We agree with Special Term, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the selling of excess property by the Board of Education was a routine activity which did not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement *(see,*6 NYCRR 617.13 [17]; 8 NYCRR 155.5 [b] [2] [i]; *Engle v Pulver,*80 AD2d 598). The Board of Education and the voters of the district were obligated to seek the best possible price for any lawful use of the property *(see, Matter of Ross v Wilson,*308 NY 605; *Matter of New City Jewish Center v Flagg,*111 AD2d 814, *affd*66 NY2d 980). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Rivera, Appellant.

The police officers’ stop of the automobile occupied by the defendant and his codefendant was properly supported by reasonable suspicion *(see,*CPL 140.50 [1]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223), in that the vehicle stopped matched the description given by bystanders of the burglars’ vehicle in color, model and number of occupants *(see, People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369, 376; *People v Allen,*112 AD2d 375; *People v Pitt,*110 AD2d 723, *cert denied*— US —, 106 S Ct 254); furthermore, the defendants’ automobile was stopped in close proximity to the time and place of the burglary *(see, People v Davidson,*110 AD2d 776). The officers’ observation of a wallet, handbag, crowbar and screwdrivers in the car’s interior ele*683vated their level of suspicion to probable cause, justifying the police actions that followed.

The other claims are either without merit or do not require reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Mullen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains the summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of August 31, 1996 and the Consolidated Statement
of Income for the year ended August 31, 1996 for Suburban Ostomy Supply Company
Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,994,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,040,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                   415,963
<INVENTORY>                                  6,917,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,678,376
<PP&E>                                       2,036,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                 923,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,129,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,851,358
<BONDS>                                     34,816,692
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        7,436,913
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       161,607
<OTHER-SE>                                (18,208,336)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,129,556
<SALES>                                     72,558,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            72,558,006
<CGS>                                       55,397,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,689,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               435,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,652,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,382,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,944,454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,762,167
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Appellant, v Nushawn Williams, Also Known as Shyteek Johnson, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
exhibit42certificateofam






     CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  OF SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  HF FOODS GROUP INC.     (Pursuant to Sections 242 and 245 of the  General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)     HF Foods Group Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the  General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “General Corporation Law”),     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:     1.     That the name of this company is HF Foods Group Inc. (hereinafter called the  “Corporation”).     2.     The Corporation’s original Certificate of Incorporation was filed in the office  of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on May 19, 2016. A Certificate of Amendment  changing the Corporation’s name from “Stars Acquisition Corp.” to “Atlantic Acquisition Corp.”  was filed in the office of the Secretary of the State of Delaware on June 8, 2017. The Corporation’s  Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the  State of Delaware on August 8, 2018. The Corporation then filed a Certificate of Amendment  changing the Corporation’s name from “Atlantic Acquisition Corp.” to “HF Foods Group Inc.” on  August 22, 2018. The Corporation then filed a Second Amended and Restated Certificate of  Incorporation on November 4, 2019.     3.     That the Board of Directors duly adopted resolutions proposing to amend the  Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation, by striking  therefrom in its entirety Article Seventh, declaring said amendment to be advisable and in the best  interests of this Corporation and its stockholders, and authorizing the appropriate officers of this  Corporation to solicit the consent of the stockholders therefor, which resolution setting forth the  proposed amendment is as follows:     RESOLVED, that the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of  Incorporation of this Corporation be amended by striking therefrom in its  entirety Article Seventh.    4.     This Certificate of Amendment of Second Amended and Restated Certificate  of Incorporation has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the  Delaware General Corporation Law.     5.     This amendment has been duly adopted by unanimous written consent of the  Board and a vote of a majority of the holders of the issued and outstanding shares of common  stock of the Corporation at a meeting duly held in accordance with the applicable provisions of  Sections 222 and 211 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.  





 






  2       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment of the Second  Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by Zhou Min Ni, its Co-Chief  Executive Officer, as of the 2nd day of July, 2020.       Zhou Min Ni, Chief Executive Officer