alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021299EN.01001101.xml

| 27.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10345 — Equistone Partners Europe/CVG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 299/04)

On 20 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 French 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 32021M10345. 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 32021M10345. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9560]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is extending 
the time limit for the preliminary results of a new shipper review of 
glycine from the People's Republic of China (''China''). This review 
covers one Chinese producer, Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp. 
(``Nantong''), for the period March 1, 1999 through August 31, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Dybczak at (202) 482-5811; 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Office 9, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20230.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (''the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').

Postponement of Preliminary Results

    The Department has determined that it is not practicable to issue 
its preliminary results of the administrative review within the 
original time limit of April 29, 2000. See Decision Memorandum from 
Edward C. Yang, Office Director to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Enforcement Group III, April 7, 2000. The Department is 
extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results 
until June 28, 2000 in accordance with Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the 
Act.
    The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to 
be 90 days after the signature date of the preliminary results.

    Dated: April 7, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-9560 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# Patent

## Title
Preparation of 2-ketogulonic acid

## Abstract

The present application is a divisional application of Ser. No. 552,708, filed Feb. 24, 1975, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 4,001,300, on Jan. 4, 1977.

## Background
The present invention relates to prostaglandin analogs for which the essential material constituting a disclosure therefor is incorporated by reference here from U.S. Pat. No. 4,001,300, issued Jan. 4, 1977.

## Claims

1. A compound of the formula ##STR1## or a mixture comprising that compound and the enantiomer thereof, wherein g is 2 to 4, inclusive; ##STR2## wherein m is 2 to 4, inclusive, wherein R.sub.1 is hydrogen, alkyl of one to 12 carbon atoms, inclusive, cycloalkyl of 3 to 10 carbon atoms, inclusive, aralkyl of 7 to 12 carbon atoms, inclusive, phenyl, phenyl substituted with one, 2, or 3 chloro, alkyl of one to 4 carbon atoms, inclusive, or a pharmacologically acceptable cation, ##STR3##

2. A compound according to claim 1, wherein M.sub.4 is ##STR4##

3. A compound according to claim 2, wherein g is 2.

4. A compound according to claim 3, wherein m is 3.

5. 2,2,16,16-Tetrafluoro-PGE.sub.1, a compound according to claim 4, wherein R.sub.1 is hydrogen.

6. 2,2,16,16-Tetrafluoro-PGE.sub.1, methyl ester, a compound according to claim 4, wherein R.sub.1 is methyl.
#### REGAN, Respondent, v. EHRICH et al., Appellants.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by Cornelius F. Began against Samuel W. Ehrich and another.

F. O. Eustic, for appellants.

A. P. Wagener, for respondent.

PEB CUBIAM.

Upon this appeal appellants urge a reversal for the reason, as they argue, that the evidence shows contributory negligence by plaintiff. We have carefully examined the record, and cannot agree with appellants’ contention. There is nothing in the appeal record which would justify us in declaring the finding of the jury that plaintiff was not guilty of negligence was wrong. We always favor upholding the finding of a jury upon a question of fact unless it is clearly and indisputably apparent that the jury were influenced by sympathy, prejudice, passion, or disregard of evidence,—something which, in our judgment, did not happen herein. Judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
#### John J. Maurer, Appellant, v Suzanne Maurer, Respondent. John A. Schiller, Nonparty Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 880]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered May 31, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for consolidation or joint trial of two actions with this divorce action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm, for the reasons stated by the IAS court. The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying consolida*418tion of the actions since one action was ready for trial and the others were not (see *Dias v Berman,*188 AD2d 331 [1992]). We also note that because the constructive trust action concerns use and enjoyment of real property in Suffolk County, venue for that action must lie in Suffolk County (see CPLR 507; *GAM Prop. Corp. v Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.,*41 AD3d 645, 646 [2007]; see *also Handler v 1050 Tenants Corp.,*295 AD2d 238, 240 [2002]). Accordingly, the IAS court properly denied the motion for consolidation or joint trial in New York County. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles R. Waldron, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 29, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



Date: September 24, 2007

By:

/s/ CHARLES R. WALDRONName:

Charles R. WaldronTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

*Identify the financial statement(s) to be referenced in the legend:
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,086,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                   174,173
<INVENTORY>                                    245,742
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,466,923
<PP&E>                                         573,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                 542,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,536,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          777,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,009,574
<OTHER-SE>                                 (17,251,238)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,536,146
<SALES>                                      1,621,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,621,622
<CGS>                                        1,810,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,314,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,479,236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,479,236)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,479,236)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.85)


</TABLE>
#### Harlem Co-op. Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Quinn.

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

July 18, 1890.)

Mortgages—Foreclosure—Parties.

A *cestui que trust,*while a proper party, is not ordinarily a necessary party, in proceedings to foreclose a mortgage given by his trustee; and the complaint is not demurrable for defect of parties because of the non-joinder of the *cestui que trust;*' the remedy being a motion that he be brought in.

Appeal from special term, Westchester county.

Foreclosure by the Harlem Co-operative Building & Loan Association against John Quinn as trustee of and under the last will and testament of Thomas Connell, deceased. The defendant demurred to the complaint for a defect of parties, in that no *cestui que trust*was joined with him. From an order overruling his demurrer, defendant appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.

*Arthur Furber,*for .appellant. *Harrison & Langdon,*for respondent.

Pratt, J.

The complaint avers that defendant, as trustee, borrowed money, executed a bond and mortgage to secure the same, made default, and prays a foreclosure and sale. The defendant demurs on the ground that the *cestui que trust*is not made a party defendant. The demurrer was properly overruled. A *cestui que trust*is a proper party, but not ordinarily a necessary party. Defendant has mistaken his remedy. If, for any reason, the presence upon the record of the *cestui que trust*as a party defendant was desirable, a motion should have been made that he be brought in. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Perry Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriere, J.), rendered February 13, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his statutory right to seek review of the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress certain evidence as a condition of his plea bargain. Such a condition is acceptable and valid *(see, People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829, *cert denied*423 US 873; *People v Moore,*123 AD2d 363, *lv denied*68 NY2d 1002; *People v Pescatore,*102 AD2d 834; *People v Greshen,*97 AD2d 799; *People v Rolston,*66 AD2d 617, 629, n 5, *affd*50 NY2d 1048). Under these circumstances, we will not discuss the merits of the defendant’s suppression claim. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### Aquel RASHEED, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7087.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

RADER, Chief Judge.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 ((Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc)) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

*954Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rita Sturgis, Appellant.

Memorandum: Defendant contends on appeal that a reversal is required because the court failed to respond meaningfully to the jury’s request that testimony be read. We disagree. Since no objection was made to the court’s response to the jury’s request, the issue was not preserved for review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and a reversal in the interest of justice would not be appropriate.

The record reveals that the jury began deliberations at 9:55 a.m.; that the jury’s request for testimony was received at 11:51 a.m.; that at 12:13 p.m., the jury was informed, according to the court, "that because of the unavailability you would receive that at two o’clock”; that the jury immediately notified the court that the request to hear testimony was withdrawn; that at 12:25 p.m., the jury indicated that it had reached a verdict; that before the verdict was accepted at approximately 2:30 p.m., the court informed the jury that the testimony previously requested could be provided at that time; that the jury was asked "[i]s it necessary in the jury’s mind?” and that the foreperson responded "[n]o, Your Honor, it is not necessary.”

It is obvious from the foregoing that this is not a case where the trial court did not meaningfully respond to a jury request *(see,*CPL 310.30; *People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847; *People v Gezzo,*307 NY 385; *People v Arcarola,*96 AD2d 1081). While the delay we see here should be avoided, it is nevertheless clear that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial *(see, People v Chandler,*110 AD2d 970).

We have reviewed defendant’s other claim of error and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J. — grand larceny, third degree, and another offense.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                               [QWEST LETTERHEAD]

Juno Online Services, Inc.
1540 Broadway
New York, NY  10036
                                  June 19, 2000


            Re:   Consent to Assignment and Assumption of the Distributor
      Agreement by and between Qwest Communications Corporation, successor in
      interest to LCI International Telecom Corp. ("Qwest") and Juno Online
      Services, Inc. ("Juno"), dated as of March 1998, as amended (the
      "Agreement")

To Whom It May Concern:

      As you may know, upon the closing of Qwest's merger (the "Merger") with U
S West, federal regulations will prohibit Qwest from providing interLATA
services in the fourteen-state U S WEST region (AZ, CO, IA, ID, MD, MT, ND, NE,
NM, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY) (the "Region"). Therefore, Qwest has agreed to sell the
affected services in the Region to Touch America, Inc. ("Touch America"), a
subsidiary of The Montana Power Company. Qwest will assign certain rights and
obligations of our customer contracts to Touch America.

      The practical effect to you will be an assignment of your contract in part
to Touch America. For Qwest services you have sold and will sell outside of the
Region, Qwest will continue to retain the contractual rights and obligations.
For any Qwest services sold by you in the Region, Qwest hereby assigns your
contractual rights and obligations to Touch America, effective upon the
consummation of the Merger. Touch America hereby assumes the obligations
formerly held by Qwest under the Agreement with respect to the Region end-user
customers, effective upon the consummation of the Merger.

      Qwest and TouchAmerica acknowledge that the assignment made hereby is
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Amendment No. 1 to the
Agreement dated as of the date hereof and in particular that Qwest shall retain
certain rights to exclusivity within the Region as described in such Amendment.

      Please sign below and return this letter to me in order to indicate your
consent to the assignment described above. This consent letter shall not be
effective until it is executed by all parties hereto.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    /s/ Mark Pitchford
                                    Senior Vice President, Consumer Markets

CONSENTED TO AND ACKNOWLEGED:
                                                  TouchAmerica, Inc.

By:    /s/ Charles Ardai                   By:    /s/ Perry J. Cole
       -----------------                          -----------------
Name:  Charles Ardai                              Name: Perry J. Cole
       -------------                              --------------
Title: President                           Title: Vice President
       -------------                              --------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THE VILLAS AT BAILEY SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioner

v.

THE VILLAS AT BAILEY SPRINGS, L.P., MESA HOLDINGS, INC. AND

CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, INC.,

Respondents

v.

HPC ENTERPRISES, INC., ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS, LLC

A/K/A ENVIRONMENTAL STONE WORKS, BURJA CONSTRUCTION, INC., ARCHER'S EXTERIORS, INC., SCHUYLKILL STONE, INC., ATLANTIC COAST EXTERIORS, INC., SANTOS HOME CORPORATION, INC.,

AMERICAN ALUMINUM AND

INSULATION , COMPLETE FENCING
AND JENNA ENTERPRISES, INC.,

STOCK BUILDING SUPPLIES AND TRUE
VALUE HARDWARE, BEN LEWIS
PLUMBING, INC., WILLIAMS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC.,
ADVANTAGE SECURITY, INC., SIMPLEX GRINNELL, GOHN AND STAMBAUGH, INC., MONUMENTAL MILL WO RK, INC., GROFFDALE CONCRETE WALLS, INC.,

L AND E BUSTAMENTE CONCRETE CO., INC., D.L. SANBORN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC., STRUCTUAL :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 243 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court[ 243 MAL 2018 ]

- 2

CONCRETE INC., FRANK GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION, HANOVER FOUNDATION COATING CO., PAVE N MORE, INC., MILLER'S PAVING, INC.,

AND KI NSLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC., :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                   Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May 12, 2003                                    /s/ Michael S. Liss
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 12, 2003                                    /s/ Jon A. Deluca
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Chief Financial Officer

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.