alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021210EN.01000801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/8 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10229 — Allianz/Aviva Italia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 210/03)

1.

On 27 May 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021210EN.01000801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Allianz S.p.A. (‘Allianz’, Italy), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Aviva Italia (Italy). |

Allianz acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Aviva Italia.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Allianz is part of the Allianz group, a global financial services provider active predominantly in relation to life insurance products and non-life insurance products, as well as asset management, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Aviva Italia offers non-life insurance products in Italy. |

3.

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

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10229 — Allianz/Aviva Italia

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 |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021210EN.01000801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                            RED BRICK SYSTEMS, INC.
                              STATEMENT REGARDING
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (unaudited)
                                        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED          SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                JUNE 30,                   JUNE 30,
                                        -------------------------  -------------------------
                                            1997          1996         1997         1996
                                        -----------   -----------  -----------   -----------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>
Net income                              $(1,533,577)  $   192,441  $(7,895,134)  $   626,376
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========   ===========
Computations of weighted average
 common and common equivalent shares
 outstanding:
 
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                            11,492,824    11,110,691   11,462,811    10,561,000

 Weighted average common equivalent
  shares attributable to stock       
  options and warrants                           --     1,769,932           --     2,006,116
                                        -----------   -----------  -----------   -----------
  Shares used in computing net
   income per share                      11,492,824    12,880,623   11,462,811    12,567,116
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========   ===========
 
Net income per share                    $     (0.13)  $      0.01  $     (0.69)  $      0.05
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========   ===========
</TABLE>

Fully diluted computation not presented since such amounts differ by less than
3% of the net income per share amount shown above.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

April 12, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00168

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF J. E. R

- P
,

From the County Court At Law No 1
, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021JV1000086L1 Honorable Hugo Martinez , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In the underlying case, the State filed a Petition for Waiver of Jurisdiction and Discretionary Transfer of Juvenile to Criminal District Court to be Tried as an Adult Under Criminal Proceedings pursuant to section 54.02(a) of the Texas Family Code. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court signed an order gr anting the State’s petition, waiving jurisdiction, and transferring the juvenile, J.E.R.

- P., to criminal district court. J.E.R.

- P. has f iled a notice of appeal , stating his intent to appeal the trial court’s order.

In his notice of appeal, J.E.R.

- P. also requests acceleration of disposition. We GRANT J.E.R.

- P.’s request as this appeal is one designated as accelerated by statute and supre me court. Section 56.01(h

- 1) of the Texas Family Code provides that the “supreme court shall adopt rules accelerating the disposition by the appellate court and the supreme court of an appeal of an order waiving jurisdiction under Section 54.02 and transfe rring a child to criminal court for prosecution.” T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 56.01(h

- 1). In 2015, the supreme court adopted an order requiring courts of appeals to dispose of these types of cases within 180 days from the time the notice of appeal is filed. See Order Acce lerating Juvenile Certification Appeals and Requiring Juvenile Courts to Give Notice of the Right to an Immediate Appeal , Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9156 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Thus, this appeal is accelerated.

____ _____________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of April, 2022

.

_ __________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
Listen

# Are Rights a Reality? Evaluating Federal Civil Rights Enforcement

November 21, 2019

For this report, the Commission examines thirteen different federal agencies, seeking to evaluate each on the efficacy of the agency’s external federal civil rights enforcement efforts from Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2018. 

Report

Press Release

Report

Briefing November 2, 2018

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
#### Murray Goldner et al., Respondents, v Kemper Insurance Company et al., Defendants, and John F. Connell Consultants, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: The motion of defendants John F. Connell Consultants, Ltd. and Peter Rincones pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them should have been granted in its entirety. The two remaining counts as to which Special Term denied the motion allege that these defendants negligently investigated plaintiffs’ fire loss. Liability for negligent conduct may be imposed only if it can be established that the defendants owe a duty to the plaintiffs *(see, Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781). Connell and Rincones had a duty under their contract with Kemper Insurance Company ‘and American Manufacturers Mutual to investigate and report on the fire *955loss in a nonnegligent manner. That duty did not extend to plaintiffs. Although an obligation rooted in contract may sometimes engender a duty owed to those not in privity *(see, Strauss v Belle Realty Co.,*65 NY2d 399, 402), and while the absence of privity does not foreclose recognition of a duty, the general rule is that "privity or its equivalent remains the predicate for imposing liability for nonperformance of contractual obligations” *(Henry v Guastella & Assoc.,*113 AD2d 435, 437, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 605, and cases cited therein; *see also, Calamari v Grace,*98 AD2d 74; *Holden v Boyle,*80 AD2d 281).

*White v Guarente*(43 NY2d 356), relied on by Special Term, is inapposite. There the court found that defendant accounting firm, retained by a limited partnership to perform an audit and prepare tax returns, owed a duty to plaintiff, a limited partner, as a member of a "known group possessed of vested rights, marked by a definable limit and made up of certain components (see *Ultramares Corp. v Touche,*255 NY 170, 182-185, *supra)” (White v Guarente,*43 NY2d 356, 361, *supra).*In contrast, plaintiffs here do not qualify as members of a limited class whom defendants should have expected to rely upon their report. The duty of Rincones and Connell to investigate the fire loss in a competent manner was owed only to Kemper and American. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.
# CI2021269EN.01001101.xml

| 7.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 269/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 269/11

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2021/C 269 I/03)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 15.6.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 15.6.2021 - 31.12.2021 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Fishing effort group code | EFF2/MED2_TR4 |
| Stock group | Giant red shrimp in GSAs 9, 10 and 11 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | Vessels with overall length ≥ 24 meters |
| Reference number | 10/TQ90 |

Date and time of closure

15.6.2021

Duration

15.6.2021 - 31.12.2021

Member State

Italy

Fishing effort group code

EFF2/MED2_TR4

Stock group

Giant red shrimp in GSAs 9, 10 and 11

Type(s) of fishing vessels

Vessels with overall length ≥ 24 meters

Reference number

10/TQ90

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DOVER
DOWNS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE SIX-MONTH
TRANSITION PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, AND THE DOVER DOWNS ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,858
<PP&E>                                         314,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,461
<BONDS>                                         79,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,790
<OTHER-SE>                                     226,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   362,561
<SALES>                                        124,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,486
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,434
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,522
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,912
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
# C_2021226EN.01001001.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/10

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10303 — Astorg/Bridgepoint/Fenergo)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 226/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Astorg VII SCSp (represented by Astorg Asset Management S. à r. l.) and the other affiliates of the Astorg group (‘Astorg’, Luxembourg), |
| --- | --- |

—

Astorg VII SCSp (represented by Astorg Asset Management S. à r. l.) and the other affiliates of the Astorg group (‘Astorg’, Luxembourg),

| — | Bridgepoint Europe VI Fund (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

Bridgepoint Europe VI Fund (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom),

| — | Fenergo Group Limited (‘Fenergo’, Ireland). |
| --- | --- |

—

Fenergo Group Limited (‘Fenergo’, Ireland).

Astorg and Bridgepoint acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Fenergo.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Astorg is a private equity group, that works with entrepreneurial management teams to acquire companies and offer strategic guidance, governance and capital, |
| --- | --- |

—

Astorg is a private equity group, that works with entrepreneurial management teams to acquire companies and offer strategic guidance, governance and capital,

| — | Bridgepoint is an international alternative asset management group, investing in established Europe-focused middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors, |
| --- | --- |

—

Bridgepoint is an international alternative asset management group, investing in established Europe-focused middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors,

| — | Fenergo is a provider of software solutions aimed at helping banks and financial institutions operate effectively. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fenergo is a provider of software solutions aimed at helping banks and financial institutions operate effectively.

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.10303 — Astorg/Bridgepoint/Fenergo

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

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard WELSH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7385.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 19, 2011.

Howard Welsh, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howard Welsh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district *215court 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Welsh 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
No. 76-5704.

#### Cochrell *v.*Wyrick, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00339

- CR

Lucio HERNANDEZ Jr.

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR3904W Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 5, 2019, the clerk of th is court sent a letter to t he court reporter, Monica
Crawford, notifying her that th e reporter’s record was overdue. On December 17, 2019, Ms.

Crawford filed a notification of late record stating the reason she had not filed the reporter’s record in this appeal was because she had not been contacted by appellant’s counsel to produce

the record. On December 23, 2019, we ordered appellant’s counsel to reque st the preparation of the reporter’s record from the court reporter on or before December 31, 2019. On December 29, 2019, appellant’s counsel filed a written request for the preparation of the reporter’s record.

We O RDER Ms. Crawford to file the reporte r’s record on or before February 10, 2020

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# C_2021082EN.01000201.xml

| 11.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10152 — Temasek/Gategrup)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 82/02)

On 2 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. 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 32021M10152. 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 32021M10152. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
NO. 07-00-0077-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	NOVEMBER 13, 2000

			______________________________________

				ANGIE MARIE JARAMILLO, 

								Appellant

	v.

	STATE OF TEXAS, 

								Appellee

			______________________________________

	FROM THE 72nd DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 94-418,412; HON. J. BLAIR CHERRY, JR., JUDGE

			______________________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

	Angie Marie Jaramillo, appellant, appeals from a judgment under which she was convicted of reckless injury to a child.  Her sole point of error concerns the factual (as opposed to the legal) sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict of guilty.1  We affirm.

	At time of trial, appellant was formally accused of intentionally and knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a child.  However, the offense for which she was convicted was the lesser included offense of recklessly causing serious bodily injury to a child.  When the court decided to charge the jury on the lesser included offense, appellant did not object.  Rather, the court acted with the acquiescence of both the State and appellant.  That is, the State had originally charged appellant in the indictment and via separate counts with both the greater offense of intentionally causing serious injury to a child and the lesser included offense of recklessly causing serious injury to a child.  In response to a motion filed by appellant before trial, the State abandoned the lesser included offense.  However, both the State and appellant agreed, at the time, that the lesser offense would be included in the jury charge if same was warranted by the evidence.  And, when it came time to charge the jury, the court included the lesser offense in its instructions in accordance with the group’s consensus.  More importantly, appellant did not object to it.

	By agreeing to incorporate the lesser included offense into the charge and in  withholding objection when the court actually included it, appellant estopped herself from contesting the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction of the lesser offense.   Otting v. State, 8 S.W.3d 681, 686 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, pet. ref’d); Reaves v. State, 970 S.W.2d 111, 118 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1998, no pet.); see Tamez. v. State, 865 S.W.2d 518, 519-20 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d) (applying the rule to issues involving legal sufficiency).   In effect, an appellant cannot induce the court to submit an instruction on a lesser included offense or enjoy the benefits of such an instruction by

failing to object to its submission and then attack, as legally or factually insufficient, a subsequent finding of guilt.  Id.

	Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole point and affirm the judgment.

							Brian Quinn

							    Justice

Do not publish.