alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021047EN.01000201.xml

| 10.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/2

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 4 February 2021

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Eesti Pank

(ECB/2021/5)

(2021/C 47/02)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | The mandate of Eesti Pank’s current external auditors, KPMG Baltics OÜ, ended after the audit for the financial year 2020. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The mandate of Eesti Pank’s current external auditors, KPMG Baltics OÜ, ended after the audit for the financial year 2020. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2021.

| (3) | Eesti Pank has selected Ernst & Young Baltic AS as its external auditors for the financial years 2021 to 2025, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Eesti Pank has selected Ernst & Young Baltic AS as its external auditors for the financial years 2021 to 2025,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Ernst & Young Baltic AS should be appointed as the external auditors of Eesti Pank for the financial years 2021 to 2025.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 4 February 2021.

The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE

---
#### NIENDORFF v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1896.)

Action by Otto Niendorff against the Manhattan Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 38 N. Y. S. 690.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1259 ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. DAN A. GWADOSKY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MAINE, AND G. STEVEN ROWE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MAINE, Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on November 18, 2005 is corrected as follows: On page 16, line 16, add "(plurality opinion)" after "(1981)" On page 16, line 17, change "Court's" to "plurality's"
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021274EN.01001901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/19 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10345 — Equistone Partners Europe/CVG)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 274/05)

1.

On 28 June 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021274EN.01001901-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Equistone Partners Europe SAS (‘Equistone Partners Europe’, France); and |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CVG SAS (‘CVG’, France) and all its subsidiaries. |

Equistone Partners Europe acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of CVG and of its subsidiaries.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Equistone Partners Europe: management of professional private equity funds; |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CVG: sale of children’s products (clothes, shoes, home products, childcare products and toys) under the Vertbaudet brand. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021274EN.01001901-E0002), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit any observations they may have on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission no later than ten days following the date on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10345 — Equistone Partners Europe/CVG

Observations can be sent to the Commission by e-mail, 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 |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021274EN.01001901-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021274EN.01001901-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
# C_2022251EN.01018101.xml

| 30.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/181

---

P9_TA(2021)0495

EU-US air transport agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Member States (06385/2021 — C9-0368/2021 — 2010/0112(NLE))

(Consent)

(2022/C 251/29)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (06385/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (06385/2021),

| — | having regard to the draft Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Members States (1) (09913/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Members States (1) (09913/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0368/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0368/2021),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0335/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0335/2021),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  OJ L 223, 25.8.2010, p. 3.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO OLIVERA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 50043

D.C. No. 2:19

- cr

- 00528

- CJC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Olivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty

- plea conviction and 30

- month sentence for conspiracy to commit health

care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Olivera’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 50043

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Olivera the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brie f or answering brief has been filed.

Olivera waived the right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an

appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary, and most aspects of his

sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver

. See

United States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We therefore

dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the appeal waiver. We af firm as to

all other issues because our review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for

relief as to the voluntariness of Olivera’s plea or any aspect of the sentence that

falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### In re HATCH. In the matter of the application of Metcalf B. Hatch.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 6, 1896.)

No opinion. The applicant’s papers are defective, in that they fail to show that the applicant has practiced three years before the highest court of law in the state of Michigan, as required by rule 2, relating to the admission of attorneys. This proof mav be supplied.
#### Elizabeth Combier, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and El-Kam Realty Co., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[946 NYS2d 159]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 28, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell over fencing surrounding a tree well on the sidewalk abutting a building owned by defendant/third-party plaintiff El Kam Realty Co. (El Kam), granted El Kam’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

El Kam established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. El Kam submitted evidence showing that it did not install, maintain, control or repair the fencing around the tree well which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall *(see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc.,*10 NY3d 517, 521 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although plaintiff argued that El-Kam contracted to have third-party defendant perform work to improve the subject tree well, plaintiff made no showing that El-Kam assumed any control over that work *(see Fernandez v 707, Inc.,*85 AD3d 539 [2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM PURCHASE
POINT MEDIA CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE THREE
MONTHS  THEN  ENDED  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                     3,024
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          20,357
<PP&E>                                                     4,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                             2,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            49,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    851,511
<BONDS>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                 260,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                  170
<OTHER-SE>                                           (1,097,978)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              49,700
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               0
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             68,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        12,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (81,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (81,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (81,410)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.01)





</TABLE>
Exhibit 23


[Letterhead of Deloitte & Touche LLP]






INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement Nos.
333-54092,  333-36462 and 333-45511 of Altair International Inc. on Form S-3 and
Registration Statements No. 333-64495 and 333-33481 of Altair International Inc.
on Form S-8 of our report dated March 30, 2001  appearing in the Amendment No. 1
to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Altair  International Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2000.



By: /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-----------------------------
        Deloitte & Touche LLP



Salt Lake City, Utah
April 11, 2001
<PAGE>
EX-10.65.21





FIRST AMENDEMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT






THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”) is made as of February 18, 2008, by and among EMERI-SKY SC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, EMERIVILL SC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and EMERIPARK SC LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (together, collectively, with their respective successors and assigns, “Borrowers” or “Borrower”, and, individually, a “Borrower”), and CAPMARK BANK, a Utah industrial bank (together with its successors and assigns, “Lender”).




RECITALS




A.           Borrowers and Lender executed that certain Loan Agreement dated March 26, 2007 (the “Agreement”), governing the terms of loans to Borrowers in the aggregate principal sum of $23,600,000.00.




B.           Lender and Borrowers desire to correct an error in Section 4.14(a)(i) of the Agreement, and have agreed to execute this First Amendment to evidence such correction.




AGREEMENT




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, Borrowers and Lender hereby amend the Agreement as follows:




1.
Section 4.14(a)(i) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




(i)
A Debt Service Coverage Ratio, after deduction of Actual Management Fees, of not less than 1.0 to 1.0, for the trailing three months ending June 30, 2008, and continuing for each three month period thereafter until the Loans are paid in full;




Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrowers and Lender have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first set forth above.




BORROWER:




EMERI-SKY SC LLC,


a Delaware limited liability company





By Emeritus Corporation,


a Washington corporation


Its Manager








By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn


Eric Mendelsohn


Senior VP Corporate Development


2


BORROWER:




EMERIVILL SC LLC,


a Delaware limited liability company





By Emeritus Corporation,


a Washington corporation


Its Manager








By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn


Eric Mendelsohn


Senior VP Corporate Development








3


BORROWER:




EMERIPARK SC LLC,


a Delaware limited liability company





By Emeritus Corporation,


a Washington corporation


Its Manager








By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn


Eric Mendelsohn


Senior VP Corporate Development








4





LENDER:




CAPMARK BANK, a Utah industrial bank













By:  /s/Malana C. Bryant(SEAL)


Name:  Malana C. Bryant


Title:    Authorized Signer













5
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60083 Summary Calendar

MARIA DOLORES MARTINEZ , Petitioner

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A088 776 982

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Maria Dolores Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. She argues that the record does not support the determination that she was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on her 2011 voluntary departure because the information contained in Form I

- 826 and

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not pre cedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 26, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60083 Document: 00514528813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2018N o. 17

- 60083

2 Form I

- 213 is not reliable . She contends that the Department of H omeland Security should have presented evidence regarding how the information contained in those forms was obtained. Martinez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding the reliability of Form I

- 826 and Form I

- 213

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Omari v.
Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 32 0

- 22 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction
to consider the claim. Omari , 562 F.3d at 324

- 25. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the denial of the motion to reopen was proper based on Ma rtinez ’s fail ure to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements for reopening. See Singh v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Furthermore , Martinez h as abandon ed any chall enge to th i s determination by failing to brief the issue. S ee S oadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). We do n ot address the BIA’s alternate finding , that the record established that Martinez was properly advised of her right to an immigr ation hearing before voluntarily departing, in light of the BIA’s
conclusion that Martinez failed to meet the filing requirements for reopening

. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994)

. In light of the foregoing, the petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED IN PART. Case: 17-60083 Document: 00514528813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2018
# C_2021054EN.01000601.xml

| 16.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10079 — SARP/Suez RV Osis)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 54/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Société d’Assainissement Rationnel et de Pompage (‘SARP’, France), controlled by Veolia Environnement (France); |
| --- | --- |

—

Société d’Assainissement Rationnel et de Pompage (‘SARP’, France), controlled by Veolia Environnement (France);

| — | Suez RV OSIS (‘OSIS’, France), belonging to the Suez group. |
| --- | --- |

—

Suez RV OSIS (‘OSIS’, France), belonging to the Suez group.

SARP acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of OSIS.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for SARP: a service provider active in the maintenance of sanitation networks and installations, as well as industrial cleaning, mainly in France. SARP is controlled by Veolia Environnement, which provides water, waste and energy management services; |
| --- | --- |

—

for SARP: a service provider active in the maintenance of sanitation networks and installations, as well as industrial cleaning, mainly in France. SARP is controlled by Veolia Environnement, which provides water, waste and energy management services;

| — | OSIS: a service provider active in the maintenance of sanitation networks and installations, as well as industrial cleaning, in France, Belgium and Luxembourg. |
| --- | --- |

—

OSIS: a service provider active in the maintenance of sanitation networks and installations, as well as industrial cleaning, in France, Belgium and Luxembourg.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under 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 no later than ten days following the date on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10079 — SARP/Suez RV Osis

Observations can be sent to the Commission by e-mail, 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/Brussels |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussels

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

---