alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021313EN.01001401.xml

| 5.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10383 — Blackstone/Vista/Ellucian)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 313/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Blackstone Group Inc (‘Blackstone’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Blackstone Group Inc (‘Blackstone’, USA),

| — | Vista Equity Partners Management LLC (‘Vista’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Vista Equity Partners Management LLC (‘Vista’, USA),

| — | Ellucian Company L.P. (‘Ellucian’, USA). |
| --- | --- |

—

Ellucian Company L.P. (‘Ellucian’, USA).

Blackstone and Vista acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Ellucian.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Blackstone: global alternative asset manager, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Blackstone: global alternative asset manager,

| — | for Vista: private investment firm that manages a number of portfolio companies active in the provision of IT services, focused on empowering and growing enterprise software, data and technology-enabled businesses, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Vista: private investment firm that manages a number of portfolio companies active in the provision of IT services, focused on empowering and growing enterprise software, data and technology-enabled businesses,

| — | for Ellucian: provider of software and cloud services to higher education institutions, such as enterprise resource planning software, student information systems, constituent relationship management software and analytics. Ellucian is currently controlled by TPG Capital. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Ellucian: provider of software and cloud services to higher education institutions, such as enterprise resource planning software, student information systems, constituent relationship management software and analytics. Ellucian is currently controlled by TPG Capital.

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.10383 — Blackstone/Vista/Ellucian

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

---
Exhibit 10.15


 


SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT


 


The
Supplemental Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is entered into as of 24th September, 2018 by
and between:


 


Party
A: EIGATE (HONG KONG) TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED, company number 51739757, a company incorporated in Hong Kong.


 


Party
B: LIU TUANFANG


 


Whereas,


 


Party
A and Aspire Science and Technology Limited (company No. 67021586, hereinafter referred as "Aspire") signed a Loan Agreement
Contract on 1st September 2018 (hereinafter referred as the "Agreement"), that Party A agreed to lend a total sum
of USD 80,000,000 to Aspire.


 


Liu
Tuanfang is the sole director of party A and Aspire.


 


This
Supplemental Agreement is agreed by both parties to specify that regarding the total sum of USD 80,000,000 loan governed by the Agreement,
USD 50,000,000 is personal loan from party B that paid through party A, and the remaining USD 30,000,000 is company loan from party A
to Aspire.


 


	Agree and accepted by:	 
	EIGATE (HONG KONG) TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED	 
	 	 
	Date: 24th September, 2018	 



 


	Agree and accepted by:	 
	LIU TUANFANG	 
	 	 
	Date: 24th September, 2018
I,NITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs

KENNETH ORRIN \ilILLIAMS,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-01 47

CG Enforcement Activity Numb€r 7651382

CONSENT ORDER

Bv: Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski, Chief Administrative Law Judse

Appearances:

CWO JOHN T. LANDRY

USCG Sector Yirginia

For the Coast Guard

Issued: Mav 5. 2023

KENNETH ORRIN WILLIAMS, Pra se

For the Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On April 26, 2023, the parties in this case submifted a Motion for Approval of Settlement

Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case under 33

c.F.R. $ 20.s02.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and ilcorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated M ay 5, 2023

New York, NY

7/e// s4*r*A

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

2
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** Hall.-0 c. Heynfm, Maroh 15, 1939, Page 2 The form of lease unaer OOMid8retiOu Is an "Or" 86 dIstlngulah8d from en "udj8ss* leeie. a the ohereoter 0r lease under **oouaideretlon,** the oovenant t0 pay annual rental6 In lieu or drilling 1s an obllgetion On the **part** Of the lbmee, whloh 0~ only be avoIded by the lesseeshevlng e ttily instrrmasntor rslfnqulshMl¶t **recorded** 

### ill

the ooMtJ or OOttntIee in 

### rhloh the arua Under lees8 may b8 situated, end also riling suoh Instrument 0r rellnqulshxwnt in the 

### Land orri0e 

### eooompanled by #LOO for l eoh area emsQned aa provided in sut~~ 10, Aaa um, 4lsu@Isrillrtars pa 960, abag. 

### ma.88-~oaialsslarrd'l*~. (

**r0~mmp~t404** 

### rot **in at0**  **x0880, OT**  **to** 

### 0an0d **and**

### rorteit'the lease 

### Sornon-payment of rentala, In tbu event 

## thel~seor

elooktoosneel 

## aria r0ait 

## fheloam, auah **iortelturo may** **be made** byt (1) a cult Wtltated 

### by.tbe **‘ Atm.Wn8r8l**  for that p~trpow or (a) auoh iOXT&Um MY h0 made by a113~08~4 

### r0rm48e 

### 0r unmr8gty uiu48.by 8n 

### ardorenter04 upon the xlnutu 

### or. the Boar4 *+eltlng 

### t$ati~aniatltutlng the default and deolarlna t&8 . 

### fnOlUooipiOIlthO'8tdUtO illqW38tiOlld **8l80 fh0**  **ptoritli0a Or**  **tb6 x8680**  **‘ in**  **9F8tioll rwU%m**  **fhaq** 

### th8order**or** 

### rorrekltum boa 8peofiio

ordermoltlq**8p0OiiiO f8Ot8**  **8~0h 88**  **i8flm fo**  **P8Y TO&&~**  **%ZI 8**  **gw ’**  **taln** 

### utnmt, *hioh **had booam**  **due w**  **6 08-h**  **dab, and**  

### dasoribing **fhe pati**  **t0** 

### the **1~8% the**  **d&i8 Or.**  the learre,and 

### ths land o~vex'edw tti 18ess, t0GP-k ulthmoh Ot,hsrrelevant iaot8 as uiu: **88rve** 

### toldentl- . $'ybeyonslquastlon the leas8 rhioh ie **being** 

### rOti4m34 aa the ma80na thueror. Althoughwe 40 notbe1leve th8t 

### a 8Oprab orderr0r 

### ,4aoh 

### 18880rorrelted

18 **8b80- 1UtSw**  **UOOOBS-,** 

### mt, **ill W**  **Opinion, it**  **UOtia \le**  **w** for a separate order to be e&area a~v~riq eaoh 

### lO(180.

**w8** Shdll, Of OOUW, bS glad t0 wOpO~t8 WI$h'

.Hon. Leo C. Hsynes, kroh 15, 1999, Pe(Ze3 the Board end tbelr r8pr8sentatlvss and with ths Commlssloner 

### 0r the 

### GeneralLand off108 

### in preperlng a proper iorn of order to be used by the 

### Eoerd In rOrf8itbIg the lseS8S.

.

. -:

.

.-

._ _~ : . ’
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
# C_2021309EN.01000301.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10238 — Nordic Capital/Leo Foundation/Leo Pharma)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 309/03)

On 23 June 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10238. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10238. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
EXHIBIT 9

                   CONSENT OF GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.,
                  INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS


We  consent  to the use of our  report  with  respect  to the  reserves  data of
Canadian Natural Resources  Limited  incorporated by reference in its (i) Annual
Report (From 40-F) for the year ended  December  31, 2007 and (ii)  Registration
Statement on Form F-9  (Registration  No.  333-146056) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.




SIGNED "GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD."

Calgary, Alberta
March 20, 2008
# C_2021024EN.01000601.xml

| 22.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9984 — CIMIC/Elliott/Thiess)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 24/02)

On 27 November 2020, 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

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

No. 18
- 1567

GLENDA DEATON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendant

- Appellee

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 4:16

- cv
- 02272

- TLW )

Submitted : February 4, 2019 Decided: March 26, 2019

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dana W

. Duncan , DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S

. C ., Nekoosa, Wisconsin, for Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY , Columbia, South Carolina; Eric P. Kressman , Regional Chief Counsel, Stephen Giacchino , Supervisory Attorney, Mary Ann Mullaney , Special Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Phila delphia, Pennsylvania , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Glenda Deaton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Deaton’s application s for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. “In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as
does the district court. ” Brown v. Comm’ r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) . On appeal, Deaton challenges only the Appeals Council’s treatment of the new
evidence Deaton submitted to the Council. We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. T he Appeals Council did not err in concluding that the new evidence Deaton submitted to it did not require remand to the ALJ, nor did it err in denying her request for review. Meyer v.
Astrue , 662 F.3d 700, 704

- 0 5 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard); see Wilk ins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 953 F.2d 93 , 96 (4th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
RED FLEET RESERVOIRLatitude: 40.575Longitude: -109.421Elevation: 5604

RED FLEET RESERVOIR

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



Split Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kings Cabin Site Page...



Kings Cabin

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



Trout Creek
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Barry, Also Known as Laroy Barry, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), rendered March 12, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The arresting officer had independent probable cause to search the defendant since he observed the defendant holding a tightly wrapped paper bag in which could be distinguished the butt of a gun *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, we find that the testimony of the arresting officer at the hearing was not incredible as a matter of law *(see, People v Miller,*124 AD2d 599; *People v Africk,*107 AD2d 700; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86).

In many instances, the defendant failed to properly preserve for appellate review his claims of prosecutorial misconduct by *582omitting to raise an objection or request further curative instructions during trial *(see, People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951; *People v Walters,*116 AD2d 757). In any event, although many of the prosecutor’s remarks departed from acceptable professional conduct, they did not deny the defendant a fair trial in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 837). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection
        with the quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for
        the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JoAnn Agee, Principal
        Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
        1350,
        as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
        to
        the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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/
        JoAnn Agee ___________________
 JoAnn
        Agee,
 Principal
        Accounting Officer
 June
        20,
        2005
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        eLinear, Inc. and will be retained by eLinear, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0483

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

PARENTING OF S.R.G.,

 A minor child;

LISA LARRIVEE,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 v.

JAMES GARDNER,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to James Garnder, to all counsel of 

record and to the Honorable Jon A. Oldenburg, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 26 2021

05/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0483
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

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

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json
MANCOS RIVER AT JACKSON GULCH RES INLET CANAL (MANJACCO)- SOCDWRLatitude: 37.384Longitude: -108.296Elevation: 7269

MANCOS RIVER AT JACKSON GULCH RES INLET CANAL (MANJACCO)- SOCDWR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sharkstooth Site Page...



Sharkstooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbus Basin Site Page...



Columbus Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mancos Site Page...



Mancos
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David W. Schreier, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 372]

*1454Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John L. DeMarco, J.), rendered February 16, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of unlawful surveillance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of unlawful surveillance in the second degree (Penal Law § 250.45 [1]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We reject that contention. The evidence established that defendant videotaped the victim through a window as she stood naked in her bathroom. Although defendant concedes that he videotaped the victim without her knowledge or consent, he contends that the People failed to establish the remaining three elements of unlawful surveillance in the second degree *(see*§ 250.45 [1]). We disagree. County Court was entitled to infer from the evidence the first two remaining elements, i.e., that defendant made the recording for his own amusement or entertainment, and that he “intentionally use[d] ... an imaging device to surreptitiously . . . record” the victim *(id.).*With respect to the surreptitious nature of the recording, we note that defendant videotaped the victim in the early morning hours, around dawn, obscured himself and his compact camera from the victim’s view and, when confronted by the police, initially denied that a recording existed.

We likewise conclude that the court was entitled to infer from the evidence the third remaining element of the crime, i.e., that the recording was made at “a place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy” (§ 250.40 [1]; *see*§ 250.45 [1]). The victim was recorded at 7:30 a.m. in the second-floor bathroom of her home as she was preparing for work. Her location was largely obscured from outside view, except from a particular vantage point through a certain window that could be obtained only by a person of above-average height, standing immediately outside her door. Even from that vantage point, the victim was only partially visible. The victim testified that she did not believe that an individual standing outside her home could see her bathroom through the window because she was unable to see through the window while standing at the front door, and “[she] didn’t realize anyone [c]ould have [the necessary] angle.”

*1455Finally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this bench trial *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.