alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021125EN.01000101.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10167 — Continental/Light control units business of OSRAM Continental)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 125/01)

On 6 April 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 32021M10167. 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 32021M10167. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2021143EN.01001001.xml

| 23.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/10

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10182 — SADCO/COGNITE/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 143/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Saudi Aramco Development Company (‘SADCO’, Saudi Arabia), |
| --- | --- |

—

Saudi Aramco Development Company (‘SADCO’, Saudi Arabia),

| — | Cognite AS (‘Cognite’, Norway) |
| --- | --- |

—

Cognite AS (‘Cognite’, Norway)

SADCO and Cognite acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture company (Saudi Arabia).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for SADCO: a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabian Oil Company (‘Aramco’), primarily engaged in the exploration, production and marketing of crude oil and in the production and marketing of refined products and petrochemicals; |
| --- | --- |

—

for SADCO: a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabian Oil Company (‘Aramco’), primarily engaged in the exploration, production and marketing of crude oil and in the production and marketing of refined products and petrochemicals;

| — | for Cognite: a Norwegian software provider that offers data services and industrial artificial intelligence services; |
| --- | --- |

—

for Cognite: a Norwegian software provider that offers data services and industrial artificial intelligence services;

| — | for the newly created joint venture company: will engage in selling digital transformation services as well as cloud products and their related professional services in Saudi Arabia. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the newly created joint venture company: will engage in selling digital transformation services as well as cloud products and their related professional services in Saudi Arabia.

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.10182 — SADCO/Cognite/JV

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

---
CERTIFICATION

I, Kerry M. Curtis, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cumberland Resources Ltd.;



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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.  The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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 company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



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.  The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  March 28, 2007



/s/ Kerry M. Curtis

President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60560

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH EDWARD GRIZZLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CR-37GR

- - - - - - - - - -

October 3, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Edward Grizzle appeals his conviction and sentence

for making false statements to obtain benefits under the

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, in violation of

33 U.S.C. § 931. Grizzle challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence, the sufficiency of the indictment, the district court’s

determination of the applicable loss, and the court’s imposition

of restitution. Our review of the record and the arguments and

authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed. 
No. 96-60560

-2-

The evidence was not insufficient. See United States v. Ivey,

949 F.2d 759, 766 (5th Cir. 1991). The indictment sufficiently

informed Grizzle of the charges against him and of the elements

of the charged crime. See United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d

218, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 446 (1996). 

Grizzle has not shown that the district court clearly erred in

determining that the amount of the loss attributable to Grizzle’s

conduct amounted to $48,400. See United States v. Tedder, 81

F.3d 549, 550 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse

its discretion by ordering Grizzle to pay $7,000 restitution in

35 equal monthly payments. See United States v. Reese, 998 F.2d

1275, 1282 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permit issued.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 27, 2021, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on September 2, 2021, to:                

## Permit No. 2022-05

1. Leidos Innovations Group: Antarctic Support Contract

Erika N. Davis,

Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2021-19468 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001017813
<NAME> PATIENT INFOSYSTEMS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         489,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  700,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (50,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,341,864
<PP&E>                                       2,624,143
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,332,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,844,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          927,732
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,402
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,336,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,416,663
<SALES>                                      3,545,207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,545,207
<CGS>                                        5,614,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,912,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               250,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,618,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,618,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,618,174)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.95)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 172 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 25
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 172

                          [Report No. 114-89]

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 
 Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             April 23, 2015

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 
 Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street in 
Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the ``R. Jess 
Brown United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``R. Jess Brown 
United States Courthouse''.
                                                  House Calendar No. 25

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 172

                          [Report No. 114-89]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 
 Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 23, 2015

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### William C. YOUNG, Appellant, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Appellee.

No. 10-3265.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 11, 2011.

William C. Young, Kansas City, MO, pro se.

Stanley N. Wilkins, Slagle & Bernard, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Young appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his civil rights complaint. After careful de novo review, *see Wintermute v. Kan. Bankers Sur. Co.,*630 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir.2011), this court agrees with the district court that res judicata barred Young’s complaint, *see Kolb v. Scherer Bros. Fin. Servs. Co.,*6 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir.1993) (elements of res judicata).

Accordingly, this court affirms. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2207 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2207

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar 
       limitation on contributions to flexible spending accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2015

   Mrs. Mimi Walters of California (for herself, Mr. Rodney Davis of 
   Illinois, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, and Mr. 
 Carter of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar 
       limitation on contributions to flexible spending accounts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Flexible Spending Account Act'' or 
the ``FSA Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL DOLLAR LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLEXIBLE SPENDING 
              ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (i), and
            (2) by redesignating subsections (j), (k), and (l) as 
        subsections (i), (j), and (k), respectively.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40351 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MACSIMIANO RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-250-2

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Macsimiano Rios (“Rios”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute nine kilograms of cocaine. He argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Rios raises an issue that he concedes is foreclosed but seeks to preserve for further review.No. 04-40351 -2- This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Rios’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
NORTON DRAIN NEAR LA SAUCESLatitude: 37.335Longitude: -105.771Elevation: None

NORTON DRAIN NEAR LA SAUCES

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



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

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



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

l0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138819 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138819 

 COA: 279511 

Oceana CC: 06-006068-FC 

ANGELIQUE JEAN BERDINKA, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin McShaw, Appellant.

The hearing court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to provide a speedy trial. The People were entitled to rely on their general policy not to indict fugitive defendants and the period of the defendant’s absence was properly excluded from the six-month period contained in CPL 30.30 *(see, People v Leone,*105 AD2d 757, *affd,*65 NY2d 674; *People v Bratton,*103 AD2d 368, *affd*65 NY2d 675).

Furthermore, the trial court properly exercised its discre*830tion in its *Sandoval*ruling *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371). The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for our review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### GOLDMAN v. LEVY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

October 29, 1896.)

Action by Benjamin Goldman against Isaac Levy and others. Motion by defendants for reargument. For decision on appeal,

see supra.

Hays & Greenbaum, for the motion.

A. H. Sarasohn, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

The points raised on the motion were well discussed and considered at the argument of the appeal. No ground for reargument has therefore been presented. Hand v. Rogers, 16 Misc. Rep. 364, 38 N. Y. Supp. 2. Motion denied, with $10 costs.