alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018251EN.01000101.xml

| 18.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8906 — Goodyear/Bridgestone/TireHub)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 251/01)

On 4 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 32018M8906. 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 32018M8906. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS, 

 Defendants. 

ERICSSON INC. and 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenors. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§

§

§

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Notice is hereby given that Elissa Sanford with the law firm of Duane Morris LLP, admitted 

to practice in this Court, hereby enters her appearance as counsel of record for Defendants Verizon 

Communications, Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Intervenors Ericsson 

Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation (Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00470); and Defendants AT&T 

Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp. and Intervenors Nokia of America 

Corporation and Ericsson Inc. (Member Case No. 2:23-cv-00468); and Defendant T-Mobile USA, 

Inc. and Intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc. (Member Case No. 2:23-cv00469) to accept service of all pleadings, discovery, orders, notices, correspondence, and other 

material related to this litigation on behalf of Defendants and Intervenors. Ms. Sanford’s contact 

information is in the signature block below. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 32 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 883
Page 2 of 2 

Dated: January 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elissa Sanford 

Elissa Sanford 

VA State Bar No. 95963 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

901 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20001-4795 

Telephone: (202) 776-5231 

Fax: (202) 478-5042 

E-mail: ESanford@duanemorris.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS AND 

INTERVENORS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 23, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all 

counsel of record. 

/s/ Elissa Sanford____ 

 Elissa Sanford 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 32 Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 884
William N. LUCY, Petitioner v. Mary COOKS

No. 19-6345

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Applicants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.

No. 19A429

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 30, 2019

Application for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court denied.
.•> ** A)ajtLS_i%^3o^t 

### C^*m{ dl CsiLvhsjuk Hpp&0&' —/jzioa& ,

b>e<tvi C4zsif(i 2%Mttf£s_ 

## ^MAWLaT CuU/iJU^ &fl JcAy; p/<?jCUfis ^^^^!^^^^aH^a 

## flsdflbtj£<l&55 SfUOAseft ftrntuUlUTiL-Tlfirt 

## IS^L^^^pqXo/ll*u3 ^u4ccj^ &jftfi*s sxddsyu^ cA^ji^J^ {jfyMsnASAjUL^Llum 1*1 {#1^ % -fl/JL (& C&u4^

RECEiVFD IM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JAN 07 2015 ^belAcosta^Clerk-
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40695

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ramon Jair Olvera-Baez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:21-CR-198-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Jair 

Olvera-Baez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Olvera-Baez has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 15, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40695 Document: 00516238730 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 21-40695

2

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-40695 Document: 00516238730 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
Gerardo SANCHEZ-MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7322.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CATERRION BACKUS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-180

§

KENT GLASSEL, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Caterrion Backus, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kent Glassel, Scott W. Grimm, Caulder

R. Schwarz, and Daniel D. Dickerson.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. 

On April 23, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report.

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are

correct, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#4) is

Case 9:23-cv-00180-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19
ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#3) is DENIED. Plaintiff

shall have thirty days from the date of this order in which to pay the filing fee of $405.00.

2

Case 9:23-cv-00180-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, Dennis G. McLaughlin, III, Chief Executive Officerof Earth Biofuels, Inc., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Earth Biofuels, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

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

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a)    allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
| Date:  November 21, 2006 |                          |   |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |                          |   |
|                               | /s/ Dennis G. McLaughlin, III |   |
|                          | Dennis G. McLaughlin, III     |   |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer       |   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 72 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 72

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the resolution H. J. Res. 59, the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) Strike ``That'' before ``DIVISION A--BIPARTISAN BUDGET 
        AGREEMENT''.
            (2) Amend the title so as to read: ``Joint resolution 
        reducing spending, and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 72

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Providing for corrections to the enrollment of H. J. Res. 59.
```
Exhibit 10.12

                        BRIDGE LOAN AND OPTION AGREEMENT

     This Bridge Loan Agreement is made as of March 13, 2012, between Mr. Robert
Hasnain, a resident of the UK ("the lendor"),  and Global Equity  International,
Inc., a Nevada Corporation (the "Company" or "GEI").

Terms and Conditions:

     Mr. Robert Hasnain agrees to lend the Company  $50,000 USD (Fifty  thousand
US Dollars) as a bridge loan under the following terms and conditions:

     1) Mr.  Hasnain  has agreed to lend the  Company  an initial  $30,000 to be
received  no later  than  Monday  March  19,  2012 and a further  $20,000  to be
received no later than Monday April 16, 2012.

     2) The  Company  agrees  to repay  the  bridge  loan  within 90 days of the
receipt of each tranche of funds.

     3) The Company agrees to issue Mr. Hasnain  100,000 common shares of Global
Equity  International  Inc. on receipt of the funds.  The issuance of this stock
represents the interest payment due to the lendor.

     4) If GEI defaults on the repayment,  management  agrees to pay Mr. Hasnain
2% per month until the $50,000 is repaid in full.

     5) In the event of any disputes, GEI agrees to pay for all legal costs.


/s/ R. Hasnain                                      /s/ Enzo Taddei
----------------------------                        ----------------------------
Mr. Robert Hasnain                                  Mr. Enzo Taddei
                                                    CFO - GE International Inc.

Date: March 14, 2012                                Date: March 13, 2012
Rafie A. LEE, Petitioner v. FLORIDA, et al.

No. 19-6052

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Andres FERNANDO CABEZAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8366.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
DIEBOLD FOUNDATION, INC., Transferee, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

No. 18-1069

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Andrew LEVERT, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1276

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10-cc 



Summary of Executive Perquisite
Allowances 



ADC provides its executive officers
with an annual perquisite allowance ranging from $10,000 to $24,000. This allowance is
paid over the year in accordance with ADC’s regular payroll practices.
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Funds, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Large Cap Value Fund of Smith Barney Funds, Inc. (the "Fund")
for the year ended December 31, 1997, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




February 10, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SIGNODE INDUSTRIAL GROUP LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SAMUEL, SON & CO., LTD., ET AL. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:24-CV-00080-JRG 

PLAINTIFF SIGNODE INDUSTRIAL GROUP LLC’S OPPOSITION TO 

SAMUEL’S MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 

ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO MAIN DOCUMENT 

Index of Additional Attachments: 

1. Keller Declaration; 

2. Beane Declaration; 

3. Exhibit A; 

4. Exhibit C; 

5. Exhibit D; 

6. Exhibit E; 

7. Exhibit F; and 

8. Exhibit G; 

Case 2:24-cv-00080-JRG Document 46 Filed 09/04/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 809
Dated: September 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Devon Beane by permission Andrea 

L. Fair 

Devon Beane (Lead Counsel) (admitted 

pro hac vice) 

Jason Engel (admitted pro hac vice) 

Nathan Fuller (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jared Lund (admitted pro hac vice) 

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Tel.: (312) 372-1121 

devon.beane@klgates.com 

jason.engel@klgates.com 

nathan.fuller@klgates.com 

jared.lund@klgates.com 

Erik Halverson (admitted to practice in 

the district) 

K&L GATES LLP 

4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Tel.: (415) 882-8238 

erik.halverson@klgates.com 

Caroline M. Vermillion (admitted pro 

hac vice) 

K&L GATES LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Tel: (212) 536-3987 

caroline.vermillion@klgates.com 

Andrea Fair 

Texas Bar No. 24032294 

WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Pkwy 

Longview, TX 75604 

Tel: (903) 757-6400 

Fax (903) 757-2323 

andrea@wsfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Signode Industrial 

Group LLC 

Case 2:24-cv-00080-JRG Document 46 Filed 09/04/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 810
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in 

compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Therefore, this document was served on all counsel who 

are deemed to have consented to electronic service on this the 4th day of September, 2024. 

 /s/ Andrea Fair 

 Andrea Fair 

Case 2:24-cv-00080-JRG Document 46 Filed 09/04/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 811
CEH ENERGY, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. KEAN MILLER, LLP, et al.

No. 18-320.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Aracelis N. AYALA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9559

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018410EN.01000401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/4 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9056 — Generali CEE/AS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 410/05)

1.

On 5 November 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018410EN.01000401-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Generali CEE Holding B.V. (‘Generali CEE’, the Netherlands), controlled by Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. (‘Generali’, Italy), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Adriatic Slovenica, Zavarovalna družba, d.d. (‘AS’, Slovenia). |

Generali CEE acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of AS.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   Generali CEE: provision of life and non-life insurance and related financial services,

—   AS: provision of life and non-life insurance as well as asset management services in Slovenia and Croatia.

3.

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

4.

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

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

M.9056 — Generali CEE/AS

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018410EN.01000401-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
IN RE Masoud BAMDAD, Petitioner.

No. 19-1226.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Maurice Patrick FORTUNE, III, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 19-5510

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.
LEI KE, Petitioner, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY.

No. 19-6991.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Ann KARNOFEL, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR WATERPROOFING, INC.

No. 19-7642.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Trumbull County denied.