alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018223EN.01000601.xml

| 27.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8890 — BNP Paribas/ABN AMRO Bank Luxembourg)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 223/05)

On 22 June 2018, 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:

1

| — | 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 32018M8890. 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 32018M8890. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/07/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      365,241
COMMITMENTS
  82,526  132,464  102,270  156,902   99,515  341,698  334,249   23,543   30,992

CHANGES FROM 09/30/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,404)
  -6,148    2,271    8,353    3,483   -1,122    5,688    9,502      716   -3,098

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    22.6     36.3     28.0     43.0     27.2     93.6     91.5      6.4      8.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      187)
      45       78       84       41       40      146      158
```

----

Updated October 10, 2014
Lawrence Eliot MATTISON, Petitioner, v. Janie Deborah WILLIS, et al.

No. 19-7669.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          JURISDICTION OF     NAMES UNDER WHICH
SUBSIDIARY                 INCORPORATION      SUBSIDIARIES DO BUSINESS
<S>                       <C>                 <C>

Advanced Assembly         Ohio                Advanced Assembly Automation, Inc.
  Automation, Inc.                              

Armac Industries, Co.     Delaware            Armac Industries, Co.

Assembly Machines, Inc.   Pennsylvania        Assembly Machines, Inc.

Assembly Technologie      Germany             Assembly Technology and Test
  and Automation GmbH

Assembly Technology       Michigan            Assembly Technology and Test, Inc.
  and Test, Inc.

Assembly Technology       England and         Assembly Technology and Test Limited
  and Test Limited          Wales

Detroit Tool and          Delaware            Detroit Tool and Engineering Company
  Engineering Company                         Peer

Detroit Tool Metal        Missouri            Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.
  Products Co.                                Arrow Precision Elements, Inc.
                                              F.J. Potter Company
                                              Fred J. Potter Company

DT Canada Inc.            New Brunswick,      DT Canada Inc.
                          Canada

DT Capital Trust          Delaware            DT Capital Trust

DT Industries Foreign     Barbados, West      DT Industries Foreign Sales Corporation
  Sales Corporation       Indies

DT Industries (UK)        England and         DT Industries (UK) Limited
  Limited                 Wales

DT Industries (UK) II     England and         DT Industries (UK) II Limited
  Limited                 Wales

Hansford Manufacturing    New York            Hansford Manufacturing Corporation
  Corporation

Kalish Canada Inc.        New Brunswick,      Kalish Canada Inc.
                          Canada

Pharma Group, Inc.        Delaware            Stokes-Merrill Corporation
                                              Stokes
                                              Merrill
                                              Lakso
                                              Kalish

Mid-West Automation       Illinois            Mid-West Automation Enterprises, Inc.
  Enterprises, Inc.

Mid-West Automation       Illinois            Mid-West Automation Systems, Inc.
  Systems, Inc.

Sencorp Systems, Inc.     Delaware            Sencorp Systems, Inc.

Swiftpack Automation      England and         Swiftpack Automation Limited
  Limited                 Wales

</TABLE>
GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

No. 18-956.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

The parties is directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the appropriate standard of review for the second question presented, including but not limited to the implications of the Seventh Amendment, if any, on that standard. The briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, is to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, August 7, 2020.
EXHIBIT 10



EXHIBIT 10.17(b)



RESOLUTION OF THE

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE

DECEMBER 10, 2003


 

Amendment of Long Term Incentive Performance Award Program


RESOLVED, pursuant to section 7.2 of the Company's Long Term Incentive Performance Award Program, as amended (the "LTIP Program"), that section 4.1 of the LTIP Program is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end of such section 4.1:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no Award made under the Program with respect to the Performance Period commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2006."




it being the intent of this Committee that no Award (as such term is defined in the LTIP Program) shall be made under the LTIP Program for the Performance Period commencing on January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2006.
form10q-exhibit4a.htm



Exhibit 4(a)







AMENDMENT NO. 6


TO


PPL EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN


 







WHEREAS, PPL Services Corporation (“PPL”) has adopted the PPL Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“Plan”) effective January 1, 2000; and


 


WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective January 1, 2002, and subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; and


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 



	
I.  

	
Effective January 1, 2012, Appendix A is amended to read as follows:







 


Appendix A


 


Participating Company








	
Name

	
Effective Date


	  	  	  
	
1.

	
PPL Services Corporation

	
July 1, 2000


	
2.

	
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation

	
January 1, 1975


	
3.

	
PPL EnergyPlus, LLC

	
July 14, 1998


	
4.

	
PPL Generation, LLC

	
July 1, 2000


	
5.

	
PPL Brunner Island, LLC

	
July 1, 2000


	
6.

	
PPL Holtwood, LLC

	
July 1, 2000


	
7.

	
PPL Martins Creek, LLC

	
July 1, 2000


	
8.

	
PPL Montour, LLC

	
July 1, 2000


	
9.

	
PPL Susquehanna, LLC

	
July 1, 2000


	
10.

	
PPLSolutions, LLC

	
January 1, 2002


	
11.

	
PPL Telcom, LLC

	
February 5, 2001


	
12.

	
Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC

	
September 30, 2002


	
13.

	
PPL Edgewood Energy, LLC

	
April 1, 2003


	
14.

	
PPL Maine, LLC

	
April 1, 2003


	
15.

	
PPL Wallingford Energy, LLC

	
April 1, 2003


	
16.

	
PPL Development Company, LLC

	
January 1, 2006


	
17.

	
PPL Global, LLC

	
January 1, 2006


	
18.

	
PPL Energy Services Group, LLC

	
September 25, 2006


	
19.

	
PPL Interstate Energy Company

	
January 1, 2008


	
20.

	
PPL Strategic Development, LLC

	
January 1, 2012

















       II.      Except as provided in this Amendment No. 6, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


   


       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 6 is executed this ____________ day of ______________, 2012.


 


 







PPL SERVICES CORPORATION

















By: _______________________________


Stephen R. Russo


Vice President-Human Resources


and Services
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Opinion Research Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. Short, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, 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:
May 16, 2005
    
    Signed:
    
    /s/ John F. ShortName:
    
    John F. ShortTitle:
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Ray Jefferson CROMARTIE, Petitioner v. Bradfield SHEALY, et al.

No. 19-6570 (19A520)

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 13, 2019

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Rocco DelGuercio, Chief Financial Officer of CM Credit Opportunities BDC I Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CM Credit Opportunities BDC I Inc.;

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 the statements 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 the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

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

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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
registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 4, 2018



| |  |                                         
| |  | ----------------------------------------
| |  | /s/    Rocco
DelGuercio                 
| |  | Rocco DelGuercio
Chief Financial Officer
Robert RANG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5198.

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Eugene C. BOISVERT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8691.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Evelyn SINENENG-SMITH

No. 19-67

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 4, 2019

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 41 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 41

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2013

 Mr. Salmon (for himself, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Rice of South Carolina, 
   Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Bridenstine, and Mr. Pittenger) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has served 3 terms as a Representative 
shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For 
purposes of this section, the election of a person to fill a vacancy in 
the House of Representatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 
the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if 
the person fills the vacancy for more than 1 year.
    ``Section 2. No person who has served 2 terms as a Senator shall be 
eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of 
this section, the election or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy 
in the Senate shall be included as 1 term in determining the number of 
terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the 
vacancy for more than 3 years.
    ``Section 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification 
of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility 
for election or appointment under this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 50 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to parental rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2013 

Mr. MEADOWS (for himself, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 

BONNER, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. GRAVES of 

Georgia, Mr. COBLE, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. PITTS, Mr. WOLF, 

Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. LAMBORN, 

Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. WALBERG, 

Mr. UPTON, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. FORBES, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. 

WENSTRUP, Mr. BARTON, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. 

NUGENT, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. SALMON, and Mr. COLE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to parental rights. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 50 IH 

1 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

2 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

3 States: 

4 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. The liberty of parents to direct the up6 bringing, education, and care of their children is a funda7 mental right. 

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. The parental right to direct education 

9 includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or 

10 home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices 

11 within public schools for one’s child. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 3. Neither the United States nor any State 

13 shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its 

14 governmental interest as applied to the person is of the 

15 highest order and not otherwise served. 

16 ‘‘SECTION 4. This article shall not be construed to 

17 apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. 

18 ‘‘SECTION 5. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any 

19 source of international law be employed to supersede, mod20 ify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this 

21 article.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Brenda MASSAQUOI, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN CREDIT ACCEPTANCE

No. 19-5192

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Roger GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5636

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Eryon LUKE, Petitioner, v. CPLACE FOREST PARK SNF, L.L.C., dba Nottingham Regional Rehab Center.

No. 19-233

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
William A. WHITE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6138

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN, Petitioner v. Anatolie STATI, et al.

No. 19-301

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 55 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to the equal application to the Senators and Representatives of the 

laws that apply to all citizens of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. DESANTIS (for himself and Mr. SALMON) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to the equal application to the Senators 

and Representatives of the laws that apply to all citizens 

of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 55 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting the citizens 

5 of the United States that does not also apply to the Sen6 ators and Representatives.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Filed 12/11/00 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2000 ND 211

Charles E. Syvertson, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

A.G. Malaktaris, Kathy 

Bachmeier, Mark 

Molesworth, Robert Coad, 

Tim Schuetzle, Defendants and Appellees

No. 20000146

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Gail H. Hagerty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Charles E. Syvertson (submitted on brief), pro se, North Dakota State Penitentiary, P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5521, plaintiff and appellant.

William G. Peterson (submitted on brief), Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, 900 E. Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58505-0041, for defendants and appellees, Kathy Bachmeier, Mark Molesworth, Robert Coad and Tim Schuetzle.

James S. Hill (submitted on brief), Zuger Kirmis & Smith, 316 N. 5th Street, P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-1695, for defendant and appellee, A.G. Malaktaris.

Syvertson v. Malaktaris

No. 20000146

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Charles E. Syvertson appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint under Rule 12(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.  This Court reviews an appeal from a Rule 12(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., dismissal in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking as true the allegations in the complaint.  Burke v. North Dakota Dep’t of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2000 ND 85, ¶ 4, 609 N.W.2d 729.  Under Rule 35.1(a)(6), N.D.R.App.P., we summarily affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Carol Ronning Kapsner

David W. Nelson, D.J.

[¶3]The Honorable David W. Nelson, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
Charles TITUS, et ux., Petitioners v. Mohammed ALAEDDIN, et al.

No. 19-5892

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District denied.