alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021332EN.01000101.xml

| 18.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 332/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10277 — Geely/Futaihua/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 332/01)

On 12 August 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 32021M10277. 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 32021M10277. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,225,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,554,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                    93,663
<INVENTORY>                                  5,938,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,917,404
<PP&E>                                       4,908,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                 446,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,448,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,915,737
<BONDS>                                      8,117,864
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       268,098
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,146,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,448,558
<SALES>                                     11,302,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,302,578
<CGS>                                        8,590,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,590,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,833,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,416,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,382,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,160,987)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                304,923
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,077,807)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Melvin J., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Submitted March 19, 2007;

decided May 1, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]; *Eaton v State of New York,*76 NY2d 824 [1990]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### *In re*Booth’s Will.

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

June 6, 1890.)

Motion for new trial on exceptions. For former report, see 6 M. T. Supp. 41.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ. .

*J. S. Boss,*for proponent. *B. F, Watson,*for contestant.

*945Per Curiam.

Under the law as laid down by this court upon the previous appeals in this case, the proponent’s motions for a new trial and for judgment must be denied, and the motion of the contestant for judgment granted, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2620 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2620

To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton 
            futures contracts from coverage under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2015

 Mr. David Scott of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, 
 Mr. Westmoreland, and Mr. Bishop of Georgia) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton 
            futures contracts from coverage under such Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CERTAIN COTTON FUTURES CONTRACTS FROM COVERAGE 
              UNDER UNITED STATES COTTON FUTURES ACT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c)(1) of the United States Cotton 
Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15B(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``except that any cotton futures contract'' 
        and inserting the following: ``except that--
                    ``(A) any cotton futures contract''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) any cotton futures contract that permits 
                tender of cotton grown outside of the United States is 
                excluded from the coverage of this paragraph and 
                section to the extent that the cotton grown outside of 
                the United States is tendered for delivery under the 
                cotton futures contract.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
with respect to cotton futures contracts entered into on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Patrick C. Shutt, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB/A of Capital Growth Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries; 

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 thestatements 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 thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officerand 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) and15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol 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 generallyaccepted accounting principals; 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: August 14, 2008
#### GILLOREN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUP’RS OF ONEIDA COUNTY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Richard Gilloren against the board of supervisors of Oneida county.

No opinion. Order (38 N. Y. Supp. 954) affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Held (1) that, before petitioner was entitled to avail himself of the provisions of section 16, c. 686, of the Laws of 1892, he must state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the county court; (2) that one of such facts is that the board of supervisors refused to correct the error complained of after being_ requested so to do, and, inasmuch as this fact is not stated in the petition, the county court failed to obtain jurisdiction of the proceedings. See In re Buffalo Mut. Gas-Light Co., 144 N. Y. 228. 39 N. E. 86. All concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JORGE WALTER BARRIOS, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50354
D.C. No. 3:16

- cr - 00787

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018 **
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Jorge Walter Barrios, Jr. , appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 94

- month custodial sentence and five

- year term of supervised release imposed following his guil ty

- plea convi ction for importation of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50354

960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Barrios argues that the district court procedurally erred by choosing a sentence based on clearly err oneous facts , and by failing to provide an adequate explanation for imposing an above

- Guidelines term of supervised release . We review for plain error, see Un ited States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court’s statements regarding Barrios’s criminal history were not “ illogical, implausible, or without support in the record

. ” United States v. Graf , 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Hilgers , 5 60 F.3d 944, 948 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) ( district court may treat as true any factual assertion in the presentence report to which the defendant does not object ). Further, the record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons for selec t ing an above

- Guidelines term of supervised release. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation may be inferred from the record as a whole). Barrios also contends th at the five

- year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above

- G uidelines term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and3 16

- 50354

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
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 amended annual report of Trycera Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-3 for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company,
hereby certifies 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 results of
          operations of the Company.


Date:  July 19, 2005

/s/ Matthew S. Kerper
Matthew S. Kerper, President
(Principal executive officer)
ex10-31.htm



Exhibit 10.31






Chyron Corporation


Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


 


The following is a description of the standard compensation arrangements under which Chyron Corporation’s (the “Company”) non-employee directors will be compensated for their service as Directors, including as members of the various committees of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”).   This new policy was approved by the Board of Directors at their meeting on December 9, 2009.  Under this policy there are two compensation components, cash and Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”).   Assuming there are six non-employee Directors and three committees for 2010, the total compensation for the Board is $150,000 cash, and $210,000 value of RSUs representing 116,240 RSUs.








	  	
Cash fees(1)

	
Dollar Value of 


RSUs to be 


awarded(2)

	
Number of RSUs


 to be awarded(3)


	
Annual fee to each non-employee Director

	
$20,000

	
$30,000

	
16,606


	
Additional annual fees:

	  	  	  
	
Chairman of the Board

	
$15,000

	
$15,000

	
8,303


	
Chairman of the Audit Committee

	
$ 5,000

	
$ 5,000

	
2,767


	
Chairman of the Compensation Committee

	
$ 5,000

	
$ 5,000

	
2,767


	
Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee

	
$ 5,000

	
$ 5,000

	
2,767












 



	
  

	
(1)

	
All cash fees will be paid in four quarterly installments following each quarter of service. Non-employee directors will also be reimbursed for their out-of pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings. No per meeting attendance fees will be paid.







 



	
  

	
(2)

	
The dollar value of RSUs is the dollar value assigned to the RSUs portion of Director compensation.  This amount is used to compute the number of RSUs to be awarded to Directors.







 



	
  

	
(3)

	
RSUs will vest after one year from the award date on the condition that the Director is still serving on the Board of Directors on the vesting date.  The above RSUs will be awarded on January 4, 2010 and will vest on January 4, 2011.  The number of RSUs is computed as the dollar value of RSUs divided by the fair market value of the Company’s common stock.  For computing the number of RSUs for 2010, the fair market value was set as the average closing price of the Company’s common stock for the 20 trading days preceding the December 9, 2009 meeting of the Board, or $1.8065 per share, rounded down.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JACQUELINE R. HUMPHRIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KURT NEWMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-2936 (JMC)

ORDER 

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED 

that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 18, is GRANTED, and accordingly, the complaint, ECF 

1, is DISMISSED in its entirety. This is a final appealable order. The Clerk of Court shall 

terminate this case.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for discovery, ECF 25; ECF 39, are 

DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATE: March 2, 2022

 Jia M. Cobb

 U.S. District Court Judge
EXHIBIT 32

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), 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 June 30, 2008 (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.



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2008 |  | /s/ Jon A. DeLuca            
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     | 
|Date: August 5, 2008 |  | /s/ Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.
|                     |  | 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.
#### Wyckoff Heights Hospital et al., Appellants, v General Accident Insurance Company of America, Respondent.

—In an action for collection of unpaid no-fault insurance claims, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated April 2, 1986, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the defendant has sufficiently alleged issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Niehoff, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 12, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 12, 2017

154442(138)

ALI BAZZI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

GENEX PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC. and 

ELITE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, PC,

Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

TRANSMEDIC, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154442

v COA: 320518

Wayne CC: 13-000659-NF

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

HALA BAYDOUN BAZZI and

MARIAM BAZZI, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant Ali Bazzi and 

intervening plaintiffs-appellants Genex Physical Therapy, Inc., and Elite Chiropractic 

Center, PC, to extend the time for filing their brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief 

will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before August 9, 2017.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13875) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan and
Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43992) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan,
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-58173) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan, as amended, and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-108324) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended,
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 14, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Hot Topic, Inc., Hot Topic, Inc. managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Hot Topic, Inc., included in the Annual Report of Hot Topic, Inc. (Form 10-K) for the year ended
January 28, 2006.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California

March 21, 2006