alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021125EN.01000301.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/3

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 125/03)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Intermediate Capital Group plc (‘ICG’, United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

Intermediate Capital Group plc (‘ICG’, United Kingdom),

| — | Dr. Axel Paeger (‘Dr. Paeger’, a German national), |
| --- | --- |

—

Dr. Axel Paeger (‘Dr. Paeger’, a German national),

| — | AMEOS Gruppe AG (‘AMEOS’, Switzerland). |
| --- | --- |

—

AMEOS Gruppe AG (‘AMEOS’, Switzerland).

ICG and Dr. Paeger acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of AMEOS.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for ICG: investment firm active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and minority and majority equity in companies across Europe, Asia Pacific and the US, |
| --- | --- |

—

for ICG: investment firm active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and minority and majority equity in companies across Europe, Asia Pacific and the US,

| — | for Dr. Paeger: founder and Chief Executive Officer of AMEOS, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Dr. Paeger: founder and Chief Executive Officer of AMEOS,

| — | for AMEOS: private operator of acute general hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals, as well as long-term elderly care and long-term mental care facilities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

—

for AMEOS: private operator of acute general hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals, as well as long-term elderly care and long-term mental care facilities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Water Temp Deg C                    
csv

      Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Water Temp Deg C                    
json

      Flow                    
json
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders 
C Study Section: Neurological Sciences and Disorders Panel-C (NSD-
C).
    Date: October 6, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Diana M. Cummings, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Suite 3208, Rockville, MD 20852, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9aabca4a4a0a7aebaada089a7a0a7adbae7a7a0a1e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7211071f1f1b1c1501161b321c1b1c16015c1c1b1a5c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 13, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20113 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
REPORT  OF  INDEPENDENT  ACCOUNTANTS  ON  FINANCIAL  STATEMENT  SCHEDULE

To  the  Stockholders  and  Board  of  Directors  of
RockShox,  Inc.:

Our audit of the consolidated financial statements of RockShox, Inc. referred to
in  our report dated April 27, 1999 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
also  included  an  audit  of  the  financial  statement schedule listed in Item
14(a)(2)  of  this Form 10-K.  In our opinion, this financial statement schedule
presents  fairly,  in  all  material respects, the information set forth therein
when  read  in  conjunction  with the related consolidated financial statements.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP


     San  Jose,  California
     April  27,  1999

<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyreek A. McBryde, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 581]

*1086Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cerio, J.), rendered October 23, 2009, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of assault in the second degree (two counts).

In May 2009, defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of assault in the second degree and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent prison terms of 4V2 years followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Subsequently, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision informed County Court that it had failed to impose the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision for defendant’s sentence *(see*Penal Law § 70.00 [6]; § 70.45 [2]). Accordingly, in October 2009, defendant was resentenced to the same term of imprisonment and a five-year term of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals from the October 2009 judgment resentencing him.

Where *“a*resentence occurs more than [30] days after the original sentence, a defendant who has not previously filed a notice of appeal from the judgment may not appeal from the judgment, but only from the resentence” (CPL 450.30 [3]). Here, although defendant challenges the propriety of the original judgment of conviction rendered in May 2009, the record shows that he has explicitly appealed only from the October 2009 judgment resentencing him. Inasmuch as there is no indication that defendant ever filed a notice of appeal from the May 2009 judgment of conviction, defendant is jurisdictionally foreclosed from raising issues related to such conviction *(see People v Jordan,*65 AD3d 428, 428-430 [2009], *affd*16 NY3d 845 [2011]; *People v Lett,*42 AD3d 970, 970 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 962 [2007]). Because defendant’s challenges to the original conviction are not properly before this Court and he has not raised any argument with regard to his resentencing *(compare People v Franklin,*95 AD3d 1591 [2012]), the judgment is affirmed.

Peters, P.J., Mercure, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6353

JOHN ISRAEL IRIZARRI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, BUTNER, NC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-915-5)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Israel Irizarri, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Irizarri v.

Federal Correctional Institution-Butner, No. CA-95-915-5 (E.D.N.C.

Jan. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Tallmadge, Respondent, v. Press Pub. Co., Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action for libel by Daniel W. Tallmadge against the Press Publishing Company. For former report, see 7 N. Y. Supp. 895.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ. •

*De Lancey Nicoll,*for appellant. *Dailey & Dell,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

There are two appeals from orders before us in this action,— one from an order denying a motion for leave to serve an amended answer, and one from an order denying a motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer. We think both motions should have been granted. Great liberality is allowed in pleading under our system of practice, and the defendant in this action should be allowed full opportunity to present every defense it may have to this action. The delay incident to the service of a new answer is of small consequence in comparison with the possible miscarriage of justice by reason of an insufficient answer. Both orders should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motions for leave to serve an amended or supplemental answer should be granted on payment of $10 costs to the defendant.
**EXHIBIT
14.2**
   The Board
of Directors
 RADCOM
Limited
 12
Hanochoshet Street
 Tel-Aviv
69710
 ISRAEL
 
 
 Dear
Sirs
  Radcom
(UK) Limited
 
 Independent Auditors' Consent
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (File
No. 333-07964, No. 333-13244, No. 333-13246, No. 333-13248, No. 333-13250, No.
333-13252, No. 333-13254, No. 333-14236 and No. 333-111931) on Form S-8 and in
the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-115475) of RADCOM Ltd. of
our report dated January 21 st , 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of RADCOM (UK) Limited as of
December 31 st , 2002
and the related consolidated statement of operations, changes in shareholders’
equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of RADCOM Ltd. for the fiscal year ended
31 st December
2004.
  
 */s/
Blick Rothenberg*
 Firm name
 Blick Rothenberg
 
 March 30, 2005
#### Arnold Midlarsky, Appellant, v Arthur J. D’Urso, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), dated November 21, 1986, as permitted the defendant Arthur D’Urso to purge himself of contempt by granting to the plaintiff a security interest in certain real property, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated February 18, 1987, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 21, 1986, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 18, 1987, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 18, 1987 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

*617The court is vested with broad discretion in determining appropriate conditions upon which a contemnor may purge the contempt *(see, Matter of Nestler v Nestler,*125 AD2d 836, 837; *Busch v Berg,*52 AD2d 1082, 1083; *Matter of Storm,*28 AD2d 290, 292-293). In this case, the court adjudicated the defendant Arthur D’Urso in contempt for failing to comply with an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered June 18, 1986, directing him to deposit cash into a brokerage account. Inasmuch as the purpose of the order was to provide security for the underlying action, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defendant Arthur D’Urso to purge the contempt by providing the plaintiff with alternative security. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Latonya ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-1413.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2011.*

Decided July 20, 2011.

Suzanne M. Garrison, Attorney, Office of The United States Attorney, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rodney H. Holmes, Attorney, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

LaTonya Robinson pleaded guilty to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and false statements, *see*18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a), 1349, 1341, after she was caught defrauding the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other organizations in St. Clair County, Illinois from roughly 2005 until 2008-in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Robinson was sentenced to a within-guidelines term of 21 months’ imprisonment. In calculating Robinson’s guidelines range, the district court followed our decision in *United States v. Demaree,*459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006), and used the version of the guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing; as a result, the court applied a 2-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. *570§ 2Bl.l(b)(ll), which was introduced into the 2008 version of the guidelines to address fraudulent schemes taking advantage of disaster relief. If the court had used the guidelines manual in effect when Robinson committed her crimes, however, her offense level, and consequently her guidelines range, would have been lower.

On appeal Robinson contends that applying the later guidelines manual violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because the application resulted in a higher guidelines range, thereby creating a “significant risk of increased punishment.” She asks us to overrule *Demaree,*which held not only that the district court must use the guidelines manual in effect on the date of sentencing but also that the Ex Post Facto Clause poses no obstacle. This is not the first time we have been invited to abandon *Demaree,*but we have yet to be offered a compelling reason. *See, e.g., United States v. Favara,*615 F.3d 824, 829 (7th Cir.2010), *cert. denied, Custable v. United States,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1812, 179 L.Ed.2d 772 (2011); *United States v. Nurek,*578 F.3d 618, 625-26 (7th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2093, 176 L.Ed.2d 729 (2010); *United States v. Patterson,*576 F.3d 431, 444 (7th Cir. 2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1284, 175 L.Ed.2d 1078, (2010). Robinson does not offer a new argument but simply asks us to reconsider our position.

AFFIRMED.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Mr. Michael D. Emerson
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint bio">
    <div class="header">
        

        
        

        
        <span class="left"><img src="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Templates/DOD2%20-%20Biography/coastguard-bio-print-left.gif" style="border-width:0px;" /></span>
        

        

        

        
        <span class="right"><img src="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Templates/DOD2%20-%20Biography/coastguard-bio-print-right.gif" style="border-width:0px;" /></span>
        
        
        

        
        

        <h1 class="title">Mr. Michael D. Emerson</h1>
        <h3 class="subtitle">Director Marine Transportation Systems Management (CG-5PW)</h3>
        <h3 class="subtitle">U.S. Coast Guard</h3>
        <h3 class="subtitle"></h3>
    </div>
    <div>
        
        <div class="main-image">
            
<div class="bio-gallery gallery">
    
    <div class="img-wrapper">
        <img class="img-responsive" src="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/09/2001875879/400/400/0/140626-G-OY189-118.JPG" alt="na"/>
        
    </div>
    
</div>



        </div>
        
    </div>
    <div>
        <p>Mike Emerson is the Director for Marine Transportation Systems and Senior Arctic Policy Advisor at Coast Guard Headquarters. He manages a broad portfolio of marine navigation, waterway, and bridge programs, and is also responsible for a wide variety of Polar and Arctic safety and security initiatives. Emerson returned to Coast Guard Headquarters in August 2015, following a three year assignment in the Office of Operations at the Department of Homeland Security Headquarters. </p>
<p>Emerson retired from the Coast Guard in 2014, after 30 years of service. His tours of duty included Senior Fellow for the CNO Strategic Studies Group in Newport, Rhode Island; Chief of Aviation Forces at Coast Guard Headquarters; Commanding Officer of Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, Florida; Chief of Drug Interdiction at Coast Guard Headquarters; four tours in aviation as a C-130 pilot, and two tours at sea. </p>
<p>Emerson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy in 1984 with a Bachelor of Science in Government Degree and has since received a Masters Degree in Military Studies from the Marine Corps University, and a Masters Degree in Business Administration from American Military University.</p>
    </div>
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2 - Certification of Principal Financial Officer



CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Internet America, Inc. (the Company) for the three
months ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sandra T. Everett, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Sandra T. EverettSandra T. EverettController and Chief Accounting OfficerDate: November 14, 2005




20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018755
<NAME> TGFC CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>