alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021251EN.01000101.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10061 — Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company/Heineken/Stockday)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 251/01)

On 30 March 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. 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 32021M10061. 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 32021M10061. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2020

No. 04-19-00561-CR

Frank Lee OLIVA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-08-0432-CRA

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Counsel has informed the appellant of his right to file his own brief and provided appellant with

a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no

pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The 

State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless the appellant files a pro 

se brief.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief in this appeal, he must do so within thirty days 

from the date of this order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the appellant files a pro se 

brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date appellant’s pro 

se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel in 

this appeal, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 13.2

                     SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the annual report of Dialog Semiconductor Plc (the "Company")
on Form  20-F  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Martin
Kloeble,  Vice  President of Finance and  Controlling  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:

(1)      the Report  containing  the  financial  statements of the Company fully
         complies  with  the   requirements   of  section  13(a)  or  15(d),  as
         applicable, 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/ Martin Kloeble
-----------------------------------------
Martin Kloeble
Vice President of Finance and Controlling
April 15, 2005





* A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### James Moran, Appellant, v McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., et al., Respondents. Joseph Giovanni et al., Nonparty Respondents.

Submitted January 22, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against defendants McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., Pat McCarthy and Richard Safrath from the Appellate Division order of affirmance, dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely as to defendants (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3, at 436-437 [rev 3d ed 2005]). Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against nonparty respondents Joseph Giovanni, Mona Giovanni, William Votta and Adele Votta from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying discovery, dismissed upon the ground that as to the nonparty respondents the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In the Matter of the Town of Brighton, by Richard D. Wiles et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Brighton, Petitioner, v State of New York, Office of Men*969tal Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Respondent.

Memorandum: After a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5), the town challenged respondent’s determination approving establishment of an intermediate care facility for the mentally disabled located in a residential area of Brighton, New York. Following a hearing respondent concluded: "The evidence in the record does not support a finding that the establishment of the proposed facility, in conjunction with any existing facilities, would substantially alter the nature and character of the Clover Hills area.” We find that the Commissioner’s determination is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, and we therefore confirm it *(300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181).

The town’s argument that the Commissioner’s decision is void because rendered 51 days after the hearing instead of within 30 days as required by statute is without merit. This time limit is directory, not mandatory *(Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Webb,*111 AD2d 760). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2434 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a refundable 

adoption tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mrs. BLACK (for herself, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. MCDERMOTT, 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. MARINO, Mr. LANGEVIN, and Ms. BASS) 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 provide 

for a refundable adoption tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adoption Tax Credit 

5 Refundability Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE ADOPTION TAX CREDIT. 

7 (a) CREDIT MADE REFUNDABLE.—The Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2434 IH

1 (1) by redesignating section 23 as section 36C, 

2 and 

3 (2) by moving section 36C (as so redesignated) 

4 from subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chap5 ter 1 to the location immediately before section 37 

6 in subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 

7 1. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

9 (1) Section 25(e)(1)(C) of such Code is amend10 ed by striking ‘‘sections 23, 25D, and 1400C’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘sections 25D and 1400C’’. 

12 (2) Section 36C of such Code, as so redesig13 nated, is amended— 

14 (A) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking 

15 ‘‘(determined without regard to subsection 

16 (c))’’, 

17 (B) by striking subsection (c), and 

18 (C) by redesignating subsections (d) 

19 through (i) as subsections (c) through (h), re20 spectively. 

21 (3) Section 137 of such Code is amended— 

22 (A) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘section 

23 23(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 36C(c)’’, and 

24 (B) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘sub25 sections (e), (f), and (g) of section 23’’ and inVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:53 May 27, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2434.IH H2434

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2434 IH

1 serting ‘‘subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 

2 36C’’. 

3 (4) Section 1016(a)(26) is amended by striking 

4 ‘‘23(g)’’ and inserting ‘‘36C(f)’’. 

5 (5) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘36C,’’ before ‘‘168(k)(4)’’. 

7 (6) The table of sections for subpart A of part 

8 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code of 

9 1986 is amended by striking the item relating to 

10 section 23. 

11 (7) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 

12 31, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is 

13 amended by inserting ‘‘36C,’’ after ‘‘36B,’’. 

14 (8) The table of sections for subpart C of part 

15 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Rev16 enue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is 

17 amended by inserting after the item relating to sec18 tion 36B the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 36C. Adoption expenses.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

21 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Timothy Allen Miller, an Attorney, Resignor.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ. (Filed May 15, 2012.)
#### ePLUS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2011-1396.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

David M. Young, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald R. Dunner, Kara F. Stoll, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Washington, DC, Erika H. Arner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Reston, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

ON MOTION

Lawson Software, Inc. submits a motion for a stay, pending appeal, of the permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 23, 2011. Lawson also requests an immediate stay of the injunction pending disposition of its motion for a stay, pending appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) ePlus, Inc. is directed to respond no later than June 6, 2011.

*948(2) Lawson’s request for an immediate stay is denied.
Exhibit 10.7



Summary Sheet for Executive Cash Compensation



I. Base Salaries



The following table sets forth the current base salaries provided to our chief executive officer and four most highly compensated executive
officers, which salaries were determined by the Compensation Committee in January 2005:



|                 |  |                  |        
|---------------- |  | ---------------- | -------
|Name             |  | 2005 Base Salary
|David Carter     |  | $                | 340,000
|Pamela Contag    |  | $                | 310,000
|William Albright |  | $                | 285,000
|Michael Sterns   |  | $                | 285,000
|Anthony Purchio  |  | $                | 275,000



II. Executive Management Bonus Plan
 2004 Payouts



Pursuant to the Executive Management
Bonus Plan, certain executive officers were eligible to receive an annual bonus in 2004, set as a percentage of base salary, based on the achievement of specific financial goals and targets, which were established at the beginning of the year. The
following table sets forth the actual 2004 bonuses earned by our chief executive officer and four most highly compensated executive officers, as determined by the Compensation Committee in January 2005:



|                 |  |                          |       
|---------------- |  | ------------------------ | ------
|Name             |  | Actual 2004 Bonus Payout
|David Carter     |  | $                        | 75,000
|Pamela Contag    |  | $                        | 75,000
|Anthony Purchio  |  | $                        | 39,500
|Michael Sterns   |  | $                        | 60,000
|William Albright |  | $                        | 40,000



III. Executive Management Bonus
Plan - 2005



In January 2005, the Compensation
Committee reviewed financial targets and awards for 2005 bonuses. Target bonuses for 2005 range from 30% to 50% as a percentage of base salary for our chief executive officer and four most highly compensated executive officers.
# C_2021351EN.01002001.xml

| 1.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10236 — Goldman Sachs/Oikos)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 351/07)

On 4 May 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 32021M10236. 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 32021M10236. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
LJNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

JORGE PAGAN

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-001 8

Enforcement Activity No. 7 591393

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: March 2. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judqe: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearances:

Eric Santos

USCG Sector San Juan

For the Coast Guard

Jorge Pagan, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about Febru ary 16,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval

of Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

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 incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

Done and dated March 2, 2023, at

Alameda, Califomia

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
Exhibit 10.14.4

Amendment No. 8 (the "Amendment") To
Employment Agreement between
Univision Communications Inc. and
Andrew Hobson ("Employee") that
was assigned to Univision Management Co. ("Company") effective
January 1, 2003 (the "Employment Agreement")

Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.Term.The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31,
2005, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement.

2.Salary.The annual Base Salary rate will be: Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000)
for the annual period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005.

3.Effective Date of Amendment.Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment
will become effective as of January 1, 2003.

4.Notices.Any notice to Company shall also be sent to Company's General Counsel at
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3050, Los Angeles, California 90067, Fax (310) 556-1526; and to Company's Deputy General Counsel at Univision, 5999 Center Drive, Los Angeles,
California 90045, Fax (310) 348-3679.

5.Other.Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the
Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

| |  | UNIVISION MANAGEMENT CO.
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | By:                     

|/s/ANDREW HOBSONAndrew Hobson |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------- |  |  |  | 

As
further inducement for Employee to enter into this Amendment, Univision Communications Inc. hereby guarantees all of Company's financial obligations under the Employment Agreement as
amended. Company acknowledges that Employee is relying on this guarantee in entering into this Agreement.

| |  | UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.
| |  | -----------------------------
| |  | By:                          

---

QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6335** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BARRY MARCEL VAUGHN, a/k/a Dwan Manson, a/k/a DR , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley
. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00266

- 1; 5:13

- cv - 03292 )

Submitted : August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Barry Marcel Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Barry Marcel Vaughn seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a ci rcuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When th e district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vaughn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAMION COLLINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D21-3575

September 30, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. 

Kiser, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Martin Kelly, Chief Executive 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ R. MARTIN KELLY

R. Martin Kelly
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2003
# C_2021459EN.01004501.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/45

---

EUROPEAN GNSS AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/45)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.euspa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/gsa_2020_annual_accounts.pdf

---