alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021421EN.01000101.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10070 – EUROFIBER/PROXIMUS/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 421/01)

On 26 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10070. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10070. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7234

ROY MONROE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:05

- cv
- 00479

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Roy Monroe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roy Monroe appeals the district court’s orde r denying as untimely his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion , which sought relief from the court’s prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Monroe ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Monroe has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*

The Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Northern

District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 09a0252p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

JOHNELLA RICHMOND MOSES, Personal

Representative of the Estate of MARIE MOSES

IRONS, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL

CENTERS, INC. and PAUL LESSEM,

 Defendants-Appellees,

CHRISTOPHER WALTER HOWARD,

 Third-Party Defendant.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

N

No. 07-2111

Filed: July 17, 2009 

Before: CLAY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; STAMP, District Judge.*

_________________

ORDER

_________________

The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition

having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active

judges of this court, and less than a majority of the judges having favored the suggestion,

the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.

The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the

issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and

decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

1
No. 07-2111 Moses v. Providence Hospital and Medical Ctrs., et al. Page 2

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the denial of the

petition for rehearing en banc. By remaining loyal to the errant obiter dictum contained

in Thornton v. Southwest Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1990), the majority has

perpetuated a serious conflict between our circuit and the Ninth Circuit, Bryant v.

Adventist Health Sys., 289 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit, Bryan v.

Rectors and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 95 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 1996), the federal

regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i), and the vast majority of lower court decisions.

See generally Preston v. Meriter Hosp., Inc., 747 N.W.2d 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008),

petition for review denied, 749 N.W.2d 662 (Wis. 2008), and cases cited therein. 

At issue is the construction of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active

Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395 dd. Contrary to the federal regulations and

the weight of authority, a panel of this court in Moses held that federal law imposes a

duty on hospitals that accept Medicare funding to adequately stabilize a patient after the

hospital has satisfied its emergency room obligations by either transferring the individual

or admitting him for in-patient care. Our panel decision misconstrues EMTALA,

making it a general federal medical malpractice statute, rather than an act limited to

emergency room screening and stabilization. Bryan, 95 F.3d at 351. 

For these reasons, I would grant rehearing en banc and therefore respectfully

dissent. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 /s/ Leonard Green

___________________________________

Clerk
Exhibit 99.2

   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Calvin E. Jenness, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International,
Inc.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financing reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.



Date:  July 30, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
------------------------------------
/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


PDC ENERGY, INC.

2018 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Amendment No. 1


 


THIS AMENDMENT No.
1 to the PDC Energy, Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is adopted as of March 24, 2020.


 


WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors (the “Board”) of PDC Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) has the general authority
to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 10.5 of the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board
desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Company common stock available for issuance under the Plan from 1,800,000
to 7,050,000 shares, subject to and effective upon approval of this Amendment No. 1 by the Company’s stockholders.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the
Board hereby amends the Plan as follows:


 


1.                 
Increase in Share Reserve. Subject to and effective upon approval of this Amendment No. 1 by the Company’s
stockholders, Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“4.2.      Share Limit.
The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted to Eligible Persons under the Plan
(the “Share Limit”) may not exceed 7,050,000 shares of Common Stock. The foregoing Share Limit is subject to
adjustment as contemplated by Section 8.1 and Section 10.9.”


 


2.                 Effect
on Plan. The Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect except as otherwise set forth in this Amendment No. 1.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan as of the date first indicated above.


 


	 	PDC ENERGY, INC.
	 	A Delaware corporation
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Nicole L. Martinet
	 	Name:	Nicole
    L. Martinet
	 	Title:	Sr. Vice President and
    General Counsel
# L_2011046EN.01006301.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/63

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for electric motors

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 191 of 23 July 2009
  )

On page 27 Article 1, Subject matter and scope, point 2(c)(iv):

for:

‘where ambient air temperatures are less than – 15 °C for any motor or less than 0 °C for a motor with air cooling;’,

read:

‘where ambient air temperatures are less than – 15 °C for any motor or less than 0 °C for a motor with water cooling;’.

---
Exhibit 31.2
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-15(e) OR 15d-15(e) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Matthew P. Dwyer, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Total Identity Corp.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the year covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the years presented in this report;
 
 4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
 and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the year in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the year covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and;
 
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 5 , 2004
 
 By:/s/ Matthew P. DwyerChief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2265

JOSEPH M. RUSSELL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

MICHAEL P. MCWEENY; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VICTOR ELION, 

P.H.D., 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, 

District Judge. (4:08-cv-00063-JBF-JEB)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph M. Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William 

Norman Watkins, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph R. Russell appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint pursuant to District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. 

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Russell v. McWeeny, 

No. 4:08-cv-00063-JBF-JEB (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2008). 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
USGS 11520500 - KLAMATH R NR SEIAD VALLEY, CALatitude: 41.854Longitude: -123.231Elevation: None

USGS 11520500 - KLAMATH R NR SEIAD VALLEY, CA

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Annie Springs Site Page...



Annie Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crazyman Flat Site Page...



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Swan Lake Mtn Site Page...



Swan Lake Mtn

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



Sun Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Howard Prairie Site Page...



Howard Prairie

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Big Red Mountain Site Page...



Big Red Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Billie Creek Divide Site Page...



Billie Creek Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chemult Alternate Site Page...



Chemult Alternate

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cold Springs Camp Site Page...



Cold Springs Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fourmile Lake Site Page...



Fourmile Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quartz Mountain Site Page...



Quartz Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sevenmile Marsh Site Page...



Sevenmile Marsh

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim

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



Taylor Butte
Order entered April 20, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00856-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.B AND R.D.B, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15158

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s April 18, 2016 second motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. Appellee shall file a brief by MAY 25, 2016. We caution appellee that no further 

extension will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

VICTORIA L. JONES, as Personal *

Representative of the Estate of * No. 12-653V

WILLIAM R. JONES, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

Petitioner, *

v. * Filed: July 17, 2014

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John R. Howie, Howie Law, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner;

Gordon Shemin, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On July 16, 2014, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application to respondent for $37,377.78 in attorneys’ 

fees and costs. Respondent found petitioner’s application to be reasonable. 

Accordingly, the Court awards this amount.

On September 28, 2012, William Jones filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza vaccine, which he received on October 19, 2011, caused 

him to suffer Guillain-Barre Syndrome. On January 6, 2013, William Jones passed 

away, and his wife, Victoria L. Jones, was substituted as the petitioner in this case. 

Ms. Jones received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision, 

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

issued June 12, 2014. Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to 

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $37,377.78 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her 

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states

that she incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $37,377.78 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, John R. Howie, for attorneys’ 

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6353.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
Exhibit 10.3
​
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
under the
2018 OMNIBUS STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
​
THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 (the “Amendment”), effective as of March 10, 2020 (the “Amendment Date”), amends the Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (the “Agreement”) under the Pacific Drilling S.A. 2018 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), entered into between Bernie G. Wolford Jr (the “Participant”) and Pacific Drilling S.A. (the “Company”) dated December 20, 2018.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.
The parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement to provide as follows:
1.         If a Change of Control has not occurred on or before December 31, 2020, the Agreement shall expire and the RSUs shall be forfeited.
2.         Except as hereby specifically amended, the Agreement remains in full force and effect according to its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Participant have executed this Amendment, which shall be effective as of the Amendment Date.
	​
	PACIFIC DRILLING S.A.

	​
	​
	​

	​
	By:
	/s/ John V. Simon

	​
	​
	John V. Simon

	​
	​
	Chairman of the Compensation Committee

	​
	​
	​

	​
	​
	​

	​
	PARTICIPANT:

	​
	/s/ Bernie G. Wolford Jr.

	​
	Bernie G. Wolford Jr



​
#### LELAND v. SUN PRINTING & PUB. ASS’N.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

Action by Harriet Leland against the Sun Printing _& Publishing Association.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 1146.
#### In the Matter of Douglas I. Milan, a Suspended Attorney, Petitioner.

— Application by petitioner, a suspended attorney and counselor-at-law, for reinstatement to the Bar of the State of New York and to have his name restored to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, his period of suspension having expired.

The matter is referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for investigation and report on (1) whether the petitioner complied with this court’s order of suspension and (2) whether he presently possesses the character and fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law.

The application for reinstatement will be held in abeyance pending the Committee’s report. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

mniteil $)tate~ <!Court of §ppeaI~ 

for tbe jf eberaI <!Circuit 

WILLIAM STEPHEN LUSH, II, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

2011-3131 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. AT3330090169-I-1. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

William Stephen Lush, II, moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 
LUSH v. MSPB 

HAY 182011 

Date 

cc: William Stephen Lush, II 

Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq. 

s21 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

2 

.08. couJ~t'PEAl.S FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

MAY"1 82011 

JAN HOR8A1.Y 

CLERK