alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021081EN.01000801.xml

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/8 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------ |

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer ( 1 ) Case AT.40608 Broadcom – Commitments (Text with EEA relevance) (2021/C 81/08) The present report relates to a draft commitments decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 ( 2 ) (the ‘Draft Decision’) addressed to Broadcom Inc. (‘Broadcom’). In the same Case AT.40608 the Commission already adopted, on 16 October 2019, a decision pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 imposing interim measures on Broadcom (the ‘Interim Measures Decision’). ( 3 ) In my Final Report of 8 October 2019, I already concluded that the effective exercise of procedural rights had been respected in the interim measures procedure. ( 4 ) On 1 April 2020, Broadcom proposed commitments (the ‘Initial Commitments’) in order to meet the concerns expressed in the Interim Measures Decision as well as some further concerns expressed in the statement of objections of 26 June 2019 preceding the Interim Measures Decision, the combination of which constitutes the preliminary assessment for the purposes of the Draft Decision. On 30 April 2020, the Commission published a notice in accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, inviting comments from interested third parties on the Initial Commitments. On 29 June 2020, the Commission informed Broadcom of the observations received. On 31 July 2020, Broadcom submitted amended commitments in response to the comments received (the ‘Final Commitments’). The Draft Decision makes the Final Commitments binding upon Broadcom for seven years and concludes that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission in this case as regards the concerns as set out in the preliminary assessment. I have not received any request or complaint with respect to the commitments procedure. Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in this case. Wouter WILS
( 1 )  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’). ( 2 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1) (‘Regulation 1/2003’). ( 3 )  Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom), C(2019) 7406 final. ( 4 )  Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Broadcom – Interim Measures Procedure (AT.40608) of 8 October 2019.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2004 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for more effective 

online education verification metrics. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. BYRNE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 

for more effective online education verification metrics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Online Education 

5 Verification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SECURE LOGIN AND PASSCODE. 

7 Section 496(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the Higher Education Act 

8 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)(4)(B)(ii)) is amended by in9 serting after ‘‘processes’’ the following: ‘‘, in addition to 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2004 IH

1 requiring a secure login and passcode for coursework on 

2 the Internet,’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

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

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JAY P. CLARK,

Debtor,

______________________________

JAY P. CLARK,

Appellant,

 v.

JEREMY J. GUGINO, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee.

No. 16-60026

BAP No. 15-1065

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kirscher, Faris, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2017** 

Portland, Oregon

FILED

JUL 12 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Page 2 of 3

Before: WATFORD and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,*** District

Judge.

1. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear the Chapter 7 trustee’s

request for denial of a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). The bankruptcy court

retained jurisdiction over all aspects of the case not involved in the appeals from

the conversion and substantive consolidation orders. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d)(2)(D); In re Sherman, 491 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the

appeals did not directly involve the denial-of-discharge proceeding, the bankruptcy

court retained jurisdiction to resolve the trustee’s request for relief in that

proceeding.

2. The bankruptcy court properly denied Jay P. Clark a discharge under

§ 727(a). The court may deny a discharge under § 727(a)(2)(B) if the debtor, “with

intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor,” disposed of or concealed property of

the estate. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Clark intended

to hinder and defraud his creditors, given the nature and magnitude of the assets

that he failed to report. This is sufficient evidence to prove fraudulent intent. In re

Retz, 606 F.3d 1189, 1198–99 (9th Cir. 2010). The court considered Clark’s

*** The Honorable Vince G. Chhabria, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Page 3 of 3

explanations for his failure to report his assets and found them unpersuasive. The

court did not clearly err in that regard either.

The bankruptcy court also properly denied Clark a discharge under

§ 727(a)(4)(A), which permits denial of a discharge if the debtor knowingly and

fraudulently made a false oath in connection with the case. That provision applies

if “(1) the debtor made a false oath in connection with the case; (2) the oath related

to a material fact; (3) the oath was made knowingly; and (4) the oath was made

fraudulently.” Id. at 1197 (citation omitted). The bankruptcy court considered

Clark’s testimony regarding his intent, his reliance on counsel, and his omitted

property, and found that testimony less credible than the evidence establishing that

Clark made a false oath knowingly and fraudulently. There was no clear error in

that determination.

Because the bankruptcy court properly denied Clark a discharge under 11

U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A), we need not address Clark’s arguments under

§ 727(a)(3) and (a)(6)(A).

AFFIRMED.
CHANGE IN TERMS AGREEMENT



Borrower:              US Global Nanospace, Inc.          Lender: USDR, Inc.
                       2533 N. Carson St., Suite 5107
                       Carson City, NV  89706

Principal:             Amounts up to $350,000.00          Interest Rate: 10.000%

Loan Date:             May 13, 2005

Maturity:              August 13, 2005

Date of Agreement:     December 31, 2005



                      DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS

A Revolving Promissory Note dated May 13, 2005 in original principal amounts up
to $350,000.00.

                         DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE IN TERMS

The maturity date of this Note is being extended to March 31, 2006. All other
terms and conditions remain unchanged.

                                 PROMISE TO PAY

US Global Nanospace, Inc., ("Borrower") promises to pay to USDR, Inc.
("Lender"), the principal balance then outstanding, together with interest at
the rate of 10.000% per annum on the unpaid principal balance from May 13, 2005,
until paid in full.

                                     PAYMENT

Borrower will pay these loans in one principal payment of the balance then
outstanding, plus interest on or before March 31, 2006. This payment due on
March 31, 2006 will be for all principal and all accrued interest not yet paid.
Unless otherwise agreed or required by applicable law, payments will be applied
first to any accrued unpaid interest, than to principal. Borrower may pay
without penalty all or a portion of the amount owed earlier than it is due.

                             SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties,
their successors and assigns.




BORROWER:                                           LENDER:

US Global Nanospace, Inc.,                          USDR, Inc.

By: /s/ Julie Seaman                                By: /s/ John Robinson
    -------------------------------------               ------------------------
    Julie Seaman, Chief Financial Officer               John Robinson, President
<PAGE>



                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                       ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY VENTURES, INC.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nicholas J. Rossettos, Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sectiion 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities and 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
         Atlantic.


                                                /s/ NICHOLAS J. ROSSETTOS
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Nicholas J. Rossettos
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                November 7, 2002
1 NO. 03

- 15 -00316- CR

HEATHER LAUREN RICHARDS § IN THE THIRD §

v. § DISTRICT COURT OF § THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPEALS OF TEXAS

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL - STATE

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT :

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS

, by and through its Assistant

District Attorney, and files this appearance of counsel in the above-captioned

cause. The previous attorney listed on the State ’ s brief in this case

– Ms. Chari L.

Kelly

– took a position with another office, and the undersigned counsel hereby

appears and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court forward any further

notices and correspondence to his county email address.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua D. Presley Joshua D. Presley SBN: 24088254 preslj@co.comal.tx.us Comal Criminal District Attorney’s Office 150 N. Seguin Avenue, Suite 307 New Braunfels, Texas 78130 Ph: (830) 221-1300 / Fax: (830) 608-2008 ACCEPTED 03-15-00316-CR 8023720 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/1/2015 8:16:55 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua D. Presley

, Assistant D istrict A ttorney for the State of Texas,

Appellee, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Appearance of Counsel

- State has been delivered to Appellant HEATHER LAUREN RICHARD ’s

attorney of record in this matter:

Amanda Erwin 109 East Hopkins Street, Suite 200 San Marcos , Texas 78 666 Phone: ( 512) 938

- 1800 amanda@theerwinlawfirm.com Counsel for Appellant on Appeal

b y electronic mail service through efile.txcourts.gov , this 1 st day of D ecember

,

2015

.
/s/ Joshua D. Presley Joshua D. Presley
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1818 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants 

to States to streamline State requirements and procedures for veterans with military emergency medical training to become civilian emergency medical technicians. 

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

•HR 1818 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veteran Emergency 

3 Medical Technician Support Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ASSISTING VETERANS WITH MILITARY EMERGENCY 

5 MEDICAL TRAINING TO MEET REQUIRE6 MENTS FOR BECOMING CIVILIAN EMER7 GENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS. 

8 Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act 

9 (42 U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amended by inserting after sec10 tion 314 the following: 

11 ‘‘SEC. 315. ASSISTING VETERANS WITH MILITARY EMER12 GENCY MEDICAL TRAINING TO MEET RE13 QUIREMENTS FOR BECOMING CIVILIAN 

14 EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS. 

15 ‘‘(a) PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a pro16 gram consisting of awarding demonstration grants to 

17 States to streamline State requirements and procedures 

18 in order to assist veterans who completed military emer19 gency medical technician training while serving in the 

20 Armed Forces of the United States to meet certification, 

21 licensure, and other requirements applicable to becoming 

22 an emergency medical technician in the State. 

23 ‘‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts received as a dem24 onstration grant under this section shall be used to pre25 pare and implement a plan to streamline State require-
3 

•HR 1818 EH

1 ments and procedures as described in subsection (a), in2 cluding by— 

3 ‘‘(1) determining the extent to which the re4 quirements for the education, training, and skill level 

5 of emergency medical technicians in the State are 

6 equivalent to requirements for the education, train7 ing, and skill level of military emergency medical 

8 technicians; and 

9 ‘‘(2) identifying methods, such as waivers, for 

10 military emergency medical technicians to forgo or 

11 meet any such equivalent State requirements. 

12 ‘‘(c) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for a grant under 

13 this section, a State shall demonstrate that the State has 

14 a shortage of emergency medical technicians. 

15 ‘‘(d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the 

16 Congress an annual report on the program under this sec17 tion. 

18 ‘‘(e) FUNDING.—No additional funds are authorized 

19 to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out this 
4 

•HR 1818 EH

1 section. This section shall be carried out using amounts 

2 otherwise available for such purpose.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1818 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 

gency medical technicians. gency medical training to become civilian emerand procedures for veterans with military emergrants to States to streamline State requirements
TAYLOR RIVER AT ALMONT, COLatitude: 38.664Longitude: -106.845Elevation: 8033

TAYLOR RIVER AT ALMONT, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Saint Elmo Site Page...



Saint Elmo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Cone Site Page...



Park Cone
#### Johnny GRAVES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-17455.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Johnny Graves, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Graves contends that the admission of the victim’s statements violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and that the trial court’s denial of his motions to substitute counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. We disagree.

The record supports the California Court of Appeal’s determination that the victim was unavailable to testify at trial and that his out-of-court statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability. *See Ohio v. Roberts,*448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); *see cf. Whorton v. Bockting,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007) (holding that the new Confrontation Clause rule announced in *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), does not apply retroactively on collateral review). Further, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, *see Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and the trial court properly determined that Graves’ motions to substitute counsel were unfounded, *see Morris v. Slappy,*461 U.S. 1, 13-14, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983); *LaGrand v. Stewart,*133 F.3d 1253, 1276-77 (9th Cir.1998).

We conclude that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (d)(2).

Graves’ motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22—1(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.2


 


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA INC.


 


Summary of Director Compensation


 


	Annual Retainer for Independent Directors:	 	$75,000
	 	 	 
	Share Grants for all Directors:	 	3,000 annually to be granted on the day of the first board meeting following the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended)
	 	 	 
	Lead Independent Director: 	 	$17,500 per year 
	 	 	 
	Chair of the Audit Committee:	 	$22,500 per year
	 	 	 
	Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee:	 	$12,500 per year
	 	 	 
	Chair of the Compensation Committee:	 	$12,500 per year
	 	 	 
	Board Liaison to the Gaming Compliance Committee:	 	$12,500 per year


 


The Company generally reimburses all Directors for travel expenses
incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain
continuing education programs.
DIAMOND FORK ABOVE RED HOLLOW, NEAR THISTLE, UTLatitude: 40.076Longitude: -111.384Elevation: 5402

DIAMOND FORK ABOVE RED HOLLOW, NEAR THISTLE, UT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobble Creek Site Page...



Hobble Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide
#### The People of The State of New York ex rel. Michael Gonzalez, Appellant, v Wayne County Sheriff et al., Respondents.

[947 NYS2d 738]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, A.J.), entered April 18, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. “The challenges by petitioner to the determination of the Administrative Law Judge following his final parole revocation hearing ‘could have been addressed in the course of [an] administrative appeal/ and thus petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies” *(People ex rel. Giguere v Barkley,*70 AD3d 1321 [2010], *lv denied*14 NY3d 710 [2010]; *see People ex rel. Bratton v Mellas,*28 AD3d 1207, 1207-1208 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 705 [2006]; *see also*9 NYCRR *16998006.3 [a], [b]). “Moreover, even if petitioner’s purported constitutional claims might otherwise ‘justify a departure from the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies’ . . . , habeas corpus relief nonetheless is unavailable as such claims, even if meritorious, would not entitle petitioner to immediate release” *(People ex rel. Ariola v Sears,*53 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 710 [2008]; *see People ex rel. Wethington v Beaver,*306 AD2d 945, 946 [2003]). Present— Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
#### Lester *v.*City *of*Oswego.

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

July 1, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment ordered for defendant, with taxable disbursements.
#### CUNNINGHAM, Respondent, v. LAKE SHORE & M. S. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by J ames F. Cunningham against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See Petrie v. Trustees of Hamilton College, 92 Hun, 81, 36 N. Y. Supp. 636.
*Circuit Judge of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20869

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY,

Plaintiff -Appellant,

v.

BEN W. “BUD” CHILDERS, as Fort Bend County Attorney;

MARK MILLIS; THE MILLIS GROUP INC.; ROYAL LAKES LIMITED; MICHAEL

D. ROZELL; BUD O’SHIELES; GRADY PRESTAGE; ANDY MEYERS; BOB LUTTS,

individually and as County Commissioners of Fort Bend County,

Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CV-643)

September 18, 2000

Before WOOD*, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

After reviewing the record and considering the briefs and

argument of counsel, we affirm the judgment and order of the

district court essentially for the reasons assigned in the court’s

July 31, 1999 Memorandum and Order.

AFFIRMED.