alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021351EN.01001601.xml

| 1.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10263 — Ardian/Deli Home)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 351/03)

On 16 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 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 32021M10263. 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 32021M10263. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Deborah Dearing

, * From the 350th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 9783

- D

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00105

- CR * June 12, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

Both the opinion and judgment of this court dated April 30, 2014, and entered in

the minutes of this court at Volume 37 , page 191 are withdrawn. The opinion and

judgment of this court dat ed June 12, 2014, are substituted therefor.

11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Deborah Dearing

, * From the 350 th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 9783

- D

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00105

- CR * June 12, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error

in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the trial court is reversed

, and the cause is remanded for a new trial

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
S. Liss, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.




Date: August 14, 2002                         /s/ Michael S. Liss
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Michael S. Liss
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### Isaac Klein, Respondent, v Sonja Klein, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant *451wife appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated March 3, 1986, which, *inter alia,*denied certain branches of her cross motion for pendente lite relief, and granted the plaintiff husband’s motion for an order temporarily enjoining the defendant from disposing of any personal or real property or moneys in her possession including bearer bonds of the Municipal Assistance Corporation and New York Housing Finance Agency and the bearer bond coupons thereof except to the extent that she was directed to deliver to the plaintiff $10,000 of the face amount of bonds, authorized to redeem an additional $10,000 of the face amount for her own use, and directed to redeem $6,500 of the face amount of the income coupons and deliver $3,250 of that sum to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is modified, in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provisions thereof which directed the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff bearer bonds in the face amount of $10,000 and authorized her to redeem an additional in the face amount $10,000 for her own use, and directed her to redeem income coupons in the face amount of $6,500 and deliver $3,250 of that sum to the plaintiff; and (2) by adding a provision directing the plaintiff to pay to the defendant $300 per week temporary maintenance and past due bills of $824.46 and $285.50 for fuel oil and medical insurance, respectively. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although a speedy trial is ordinarily the proper remedy for inequities in an order of support pendente lite, relief may be granted on appeal where the interest of justice so dictates *(Messina v Messina,*101 AD2d 856). The court’s primary concern in determining an application for temporary maintenance is the respective financial conditions of the parties and the movant’s needs for such support pending trial *(Chachkes v Chachkes,*107 AD2d 786). On the record before us, we conclude that Special Term erred in declining to closely examine the parties’ conflicting contentions and simply decreeing a limited division of assets and award of such assets to the plaintiff, which relief was granted without the plaintiff’s request. We find on this record that an award of temporary maintenance in the amount of $300 per week to the defendant would be appropriate to meet her needs. While the defendant has failed to substantiate her request for $400 per week for temporary repairs to the marital home, the need for payment of past due bills for fuel and medical insurance has been shown.

*452The remaining contentions of the parties do not require discussion. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
   Dover Downs Entertainment, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-8147) on Form S-8 of Dover Downs Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated
February 19, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Dover Downs
Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and June
30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows for
the year ended December 31, 2001, the six-months ended December 31, 2000 and
each of the years in the two-year period ended June 30, 2000, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 report on Form 10-K of Dover Downs
Entertainment, Inc.






                                            KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 20, 2002
EXHIBIT 31.1


Certification

I, Kevan Casey, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, Inc.;

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 period 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 periods 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)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) 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 period in which this report is being
prepared;

b.     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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

5.     The small business issuer'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 the 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: November 15, 2004


/s/ Kevan Casey
-----------------------------------
Kevan Casey, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### PROKOP, Respondent, v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Action by John Prokop against the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Aging and Technology.                    

*Date:*                         October 22, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health,  Gateway Building,  7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-7702                         *firthkm@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 17, 2021. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-20520 Filed 9-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 230 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to authorize the 

Central Everglades Planning Project, Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2015 

Mr. MURPHY of Florida (for himself, Mr. JOLLY, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. ROONEY of Florida, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. 

DEUTCH, Mr. POSEY, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

CLAWSON of Florida, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, and Ms. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

to authorize the Central Everglades Planning Project, 

Florida. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERP, CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING 

4 PROJECT, FLORIDA. 

5 Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act 

6 of 2000 (Public Law 106–541; 114 Stat. 2680) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new subsection: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 230 IH

1 ‘‘(q) CERP, CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING

2 PROJECT, FLORIDA.— 

3 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION.—In accordance with 

4 subsection (d), the project for environmental restora5 tion, CERP, Central Everglades Planning Project, 

6 Florida, is authorized to be carried out by the Sec7 retary substantially in accordance with the plans, 

8 and subject to the conditions, recommended in the 

9 final report of the Chief of Engineers signed on De10 cember 23, 2014. 

11 ‘‘(2) TOTAL COST.—The project authorized 

12 under paragraph (1) is authorized to be carried out 

13 by the Secretary at a total cost of $1,900,000,000, 

14 with an estimated Federal cost of $950,875,000 and 

15 an estimated non-Federal cost of $949,125,000.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Disbrow, Appellant, v. Disbrow, Respondent.

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

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 23

Independent Auditors' Consent

To
the Stockholders of Coldwater Creek Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-82260, 333-60099, and 333-31699) on Forms S-8 of
Coldwater Creek Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 5, 2004, except for the adjustments to include disclosure of the customer list rental income and customer list rental
expense for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in Note 2 and to include disclosure of the components of interest, net, and other for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in
Note 2, as to which the date is March 30, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Coldwater Creek Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2004 and
February 1, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 and the eleven-month transition
period ended February 1, 2003 and our report dated March 5, 2004 on the related financial statement schedule in connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, which reports appear in the January 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Coldwater Creek Inc.

Our
report on the aforementioned consolidated financial statements refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to restate the amounts and disclosures related to the
Company's two 50 percent stock dividends declared on December 19, 2002 and August 4, 2003 reflected in the March 2, 2002 consolidated financial statements, the adjustments
that were applied to restate the segment reporting amounts and disclosures in Note 1 and Note 17 of the March 2, 2002 consolidated financial statements, the adjustments that were
applied to include disclosure of the customer list rental income and customer list rental expense for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in Note 2 to the consolidated financial
statements, and the adjustments that were applied to include disclosure of the components of interest, net, and other for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in Note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the March 2, 2002 consolidated financial statements other than with respect to such
adjustments.

| |  | /s/ KPMG LLP
| |  | ------------

Boise,
Idaho
May 5, 2004



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Ramos, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered on March 18, 1986, unanimously dismissed for the reason that defendant has absconded and is unable to obey the mandate of this court. *(See, People v White,*49 AD2d 719.) No opinion. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20660 

Summary Calendar

__________________

GLENN ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-679

- - - - - - - - - -

April 11, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glenn Franklin Anderson appeals the dismissal of his

petition for a writ of mandamus on grounds of res judicata. We

have reviewed the record and the briefs, and AFFIRM the judgment

for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. 

Anderson v. Secretary of the Air Force, No. CA-H-95-679 (S.D.

Tex. Jul. 10, 1995). 
No. 95-20660

-2-

In a prior appeal to this court, this court ordered Anderson

to pay $500 in sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 for the

filing of a frivolous action against the same party and involving

the same cause of action. Anderson is BARRED from filing any

pleadings or documents of any kind, either in the district courts

of this circuit or in this court, without advance written

permission of a judge of the forum court. Any attempt by

Anderson to file frivolous pleadings in the future will result in

further sanctions. All of Anderson's motions and filings

pertaining to this case are DENIED as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Debroux, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered November 27, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

In view of the fact that the defendant did not testify in his own behalf, the trial court committed reversible error when it inadvertently failed to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant’s counsel, to draw no inference from the failure of the defendant to testify *(see,*CPL 300.10 [2]; *People v Britt,*43 NY2d 111; *People v Jones,*67 AD2d 635). This error, which when properly preserved for appellate review, is immune from harmless error analysis *(People v Britt, supra),*was further compounded by the court’s incorrect statement in its charge that "[ojbviously, the defendant, who testified at this trial, is an interested witness”.

It is true, as the People argue, that the defendant did not preserve this error for appellate review by virtue of his counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s omission in its charge *(see, People v Jiminez,*79 AD2d 1012, *mod on other grounds*55 NY2d 895). Nevertheless, the proof of the defen*232dant’s guilt was not overwhelming, and, under the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that reversal of the defendant’s conviction is warranted in the interest of justice.

Finally, we note that, during summation, the prosecutor in several instances improperly vouched for his witnesses’ credibility, and denigrated the defense testimony offered by the defendant’s sister. These errors were unpreserved for appellate review, and would not by themselves warrant a reversal of the defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice. However, we caution the People to refrain from repeating these errors at the retrial of the instant matter. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.