alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010142EN.01002601.xml

| 1.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/26

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 15 March 2010 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.351 — Swedish Interconnectors

Rapporteur: Romania

2010/C 142/06

| 1. | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its preliminary assessment under Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement in June 2009. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its preliminary assessment under Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement in June 2009.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of EC Regulation No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of EC Regulation No 1/2003.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Svenska Kraftnät are sufficient and proportionate to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its preliminary assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Svenska Kraftnät are sufficient and proportionate to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its preliminary assessment.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Svenska Kraftnät, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Svenska Kraftnät, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee intends to recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee intends to recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1098 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1098

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 24, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4626) to restore the application of the 
Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect 
competition and consumers. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gene Barr, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 384]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.), rendered November 25, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (four counts), grand larceny in the third degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), and attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court erred in excluding, as hearsay, certain testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s deposits of various forged or altered checks. Specifically, the defendant attempted to testify to conversations he allegedly had with a man named “Sule” prior to depositing the checks. That evidence was admissible, as it was not offered “for the purpose of establishing the truth thereof, but merely to establish the defendant’s state of mind” *(People v Boyd,*256 AD2d 350, 351 [1998]; *see People v Minor,*69 NY2d 779, 780 [1987]; *People v Hamm,*42 AD3d 550, 551 [2007]). Nevertheless, the error was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; *People v Bruner,*222 AD2d 738 [1995]; *People v Robles,*
      *865201 AD2d 591, 592 [1994]; *People v Martinez,*154 AD2d 401, 401-402 [1989]).

Additionally, the defendant failed to develop a factual record sufficient to permit appellate review of his claim that the court should have admitted into evidence a document reflecting certain Western Union transfers *(see People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]; *People v Elliott,*39 AD3d 663 [2007]; *People v Thompson,*34 AD3d 852, 854 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


 


to


 


the
Collaboration, License and Supply Agreement, dated July 6, 2004


 


by and
between


 


Acusphere
Inc. (“Acusphere”)


 


and


 


Nycomed
Danmark ApS (“Nycomed”)


 


 


This First Amendment (the “First Amendment”),
effective as of October 19, 2005, is entered into by and between Acusphere and
Nycomed (the “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into a Collaboration, License and Supply Agreement, dated
July 6, 2004 (“the Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties have agreed to make a prepayment to Acusphere of a certain amount,
such amount to be deducted from Nycomed’s next milestone payment under the
Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
the agreed prepayment amount shall be used by Acusphere to accelerate the
trademark activities related to the Product (as defined in the Agreement);


 


NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Parties agree as follows:


 


 


1.                                       In order to
accelerate the trademark activities related to the Product (as defined in the
Agreement), the milestone payment set forth in Section 4.03(a) shall be reduced
by $150,000, and Nycomed shall pay to Acusphere, as licensing fees, a milestone
payment equal to $150,000 on October 24, 2005, such milestone payment to be deemed
a milestone payment paid under Section 4.03 of the Agreement for all purposes
of the Agreement.


 


2.                                       Except as
otherwise set forth herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect between the Parties.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have
caused this First Amendment to be executed in duplicate by their duly
authorized officers as of the date first above stated.


 





















 


	
  ACUSPHERE, INC.,  

  	
   

  	
  NYCOMED DANMARK ApS  

  
	
  a Delaware corporation

  	
   

  	
  a Danish corporation 

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/          Sherri
  C. Oberg

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Håkan Björklund

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Sherri C. Oberg

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Håkan Björklund

  
	
  Title:

  	
  President and Chief
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Executive Officer,
  Nycomed Group
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14202]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-382-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

May 31, 2001.

    In the Commission's order issued on May 17, 2001,\1\ the Commission 
directed that a technical conference be held to address issues raised 
by the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Northern Natural Gas Co., 95 FERC para. 61,238 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Monday, 
June 25, 2001, at 1 p.m., in a room to be designated, at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14202 Filed 6-5-01 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Miguel CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71179.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 11, 2013.*

Filed Oct. 7, 2013.

Xavier Gonzales, Xavier Gonzales, Attorney at Law, P.C., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: ALARCON and BERZON, Circuit Judges; and ZOUHARY, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The only claim in his Petition is that Carrillo’s conviction of an aggravated felony was invalid because of ineffective assistance of counsel. That contention “is no longer supportable,” because *Chaidez v. United States,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), held *Padilla v. Kentucky,*559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), non-retroactive. Pet’r’s Suppl. Br. at 5.

DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Online  Holdings,  Inc., a Nevada
corporation  (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ending December 31,
2002  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Dennis  Lairamore,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.  Sec.  1350),  that  to  my  knowledge:

(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.


By:/s/ Dennis  Lairamore
--------------------------
Dennis Lairamore
Chief  Executive  Officer
Chief  Financial  Officer
March  31,  2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 972 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 972

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement 
  that certain former members of the reserve components of the Armed 
 Forces be at least 60 years of age in order to be eligible to receive 
                         health care benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2009

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Kline of Minnesota) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement 
  that certain former members of the reserve components of the Armed 
 Forces be at least 60 years of age in order to be eligible to receive 
                         health care benefits.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE AGE REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS 
              FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE RETIREES.

    Section 1074(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(1)''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (2).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
========================================================================================
                      AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P. SUBSIDIARIES

========================================================================================
                                                              STATE
                                                               OF
                     SUBSIDIARY                           ORGANIZATION/       OWNERSHIP
                                                          INCORPORATION

========================================================================================
<S>                                                       <C>                 <C>
AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.                                        DE
          AmeriGas Finance Corp.                               DE                100%
     AmeriGas Propane, L.P.                                    DE                  *
          AmeriGas Propane Parts &                             PA                100%
            Service, Inc.
          Northwest LPG Supply Ltd.                          Canada              100%
          Petrolane Offshore Limited                         Bermuda             100%
========================================================================================
</TABLE>


*     AmeriGas Partners, L.P. owns 98.9899% of AmeriGas Propane, L.P.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1335

Crude Oil Fixed Swap - Argus WTI Midland - Argus Media TMA

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by Argus Media for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the Argus Media

Argus WTI Midland price for the trade month period beginning with the first business day after 

the 25th calendar day two months prior to the contract month through the last business day 

that falls on or before the 25th calendar day of the month prior to the contract month. If the 

25th calendar day is a weekend or holiday, the Trade month period shall end on the first 

business day prior to the 25th calendar day.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be in barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

barrels multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per barrel. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.01 per barrel. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Paul Goddard, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of ARYx Therapeutics, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 13, 2008 | By:    | /s/  Paul Goddard                                         |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   Paul Goddard, Ph.D.                                |
|                        |   |   Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
```

[Federal Register: October 31, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 54984]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31oc01-38]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Technology Advisory Committee; Security Procedures for November
27, 2001; Meeting

    On October 17, 2001, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
published notice that its Technology Advisory Committee will conduct a
public meeting on Tuesday, November 27, 2001. The meeting will take
place at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 230 South LaSalle Street,
Chicago, IL 60604-1413, from 1 to 5 p.m. For general information
concerning this meeting, see 66 FR 52747.
    Due to the physical security procedures at the Federal Reserve Bank
of Chicago, all attendees must register with the Bank in advance, (but
not later than November 25, 2001) by providing their names and company
affiliations. To register, please contact Judith Kozla by telephone at
(800) 333-0894, extension or by e-mail at [email protected]. The
secondary contact is Pamela Suarez, who can be reached at (800) 333-
0894, extension 8103, or [email protected]. Persons who do not
register by November 25, 2001 will not be able to attend the meeting.
    On the day of the meeting, attendees must bring photo
identification to receive a visitors pass. Be advised that the Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago utilizes metal detectors as well as x-ray
machines for all bags and briefcases.
    For further information concerning this meeting, please contact
Natalie A. Markman or William Penner at (202) 418-5060.

    Issued by the Commission in Washington, DC on October 26, 2001.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-27374 Filed 10-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

l0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

138571

SHARON LEE SCHELLENBERG, and DAVID W. RIGGLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 138571 COA: 289401 Leelanau CC: 06-007326-CZ BINGHAM TOWNSHIP, and ROBERT FOSTER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.