alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018187EN.01000101.xml

| 1.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8833 — Alps/Alpine)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 187/01)

On 24 May 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 32018M8833. 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 32018M8833. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2014

NO. 03-13-00298-CR

Dale Erwin Arldt, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Qwindel Jerome PAGE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5498

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
ALD

- 113 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 3

- 4614

___________

IN RE: DUMONT BUSH

,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Crim. No. 2

- 95

- cr

- 00407

- 006 )

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 9, 2014

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR.

, Circuit Judg es

(Opinion filed : January 23, 2014 )

_________

O P I N I O N

_________

PER CURIAM

On November 26, 2012, Dumont Bush filed a motion to correct clerical error

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. On December 2, 2013, Bush filed the

present petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to compel the District Court to rule

upon that motion. The District Court entered an order denying Bush’s motion on

December 12, 2013. Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition as moot.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 5 0 2 7 5 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

J O S E G U A D A L U P E E S C A R E N O H E R N A N D E Z
,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 3 : 0 9

- C R

- 3 3 7 4

- 1

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M
, G A R Z A
, a n d E L R O D
, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

J o s e G u a d a l u p e E s c a r e n o H e r n a n d e z ( E s c a r e n o H e r n a n d e z ) p l e a d e d g u i l t y

t o a t t e m p t e d u n l a w f u l r e e n t r y b y a n a l i e n ( c o u n t o n e ) a n d t o u s i n g a n a l t e r e d

p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t a l i e n c a r d t o r e e n t e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s f r a u d u l e n t l y ( c o u n t

t w o )

. S e e 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 6 ; 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 5 4 6

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e n t e n c e d h i m

t o a 3 0

- m o n t h p r i s o n t e r m o n e a c h c o u n t , t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y

. T h e

s e n t e n c e s w e r e w i t h i n t h e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 3 0 t o 3 7 m o n t h s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 15 , 20 11
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50275 Document: 00511382264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 5 0 2 7 5

E s c a r e n o H e r n a n d e z a p p e a l s , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e l a c k o f a f a s t

- t r a c k

d i s p o s i t i o n p r o g r a m i n t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s r e s u l t s i n a n u n w a r r a n t e d

d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n h i s s e n t e n c e a n d t h e s e n t e n c e s o f t h o s e c o n v i c t e d i n d i s t r i c t s
h a v i n g s u c h p r o g r a m s a n d t h a t t h e d i s p a r i t y m a k e s h i s s e n t e n c e s u n r e a s o n a b l e

. A s h e c o n c e d e s , h i s a r g u m e n t i s f o r e c l o s e d b y o u r d e c i s i o n i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. G o m e z

- H e r r e r a , 5 2 3 F

. 3 d 5 5 4 , 5 6 2

- 6 3 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )
, a n d h e r a i s e s i t o n l y t o

p r e s e r v e i t f

o r f u r t h e r r e v i e w

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s
A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 10-50275 Document: 00511382264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Principal Return Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Security and Growth Fund of Smith Barney Principal Return
Fund (the "Fund") for the year ended November 30, 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.




January 15, 1998
IIA 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 120 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Received 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the 

more than 5,000 slaves and free Black persons who 

fought for independence in the American Revolution. 

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, 

provides that the location of a commemorative work in 

Area I, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Commemorative 

Areas Washington, DC and Environs’’, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 120 RDS 

numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, shall 

be deemed to be authorized only if a recommendation for 

that location is approved by law not later than 150 calendar days after Congress is notified of the recommendation; 

Whereas section 2860 of Public Law 112–239 (40 U.S.C. 

8903 note) authorized the National Mall Liberty Fund 

D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land in Area I 

or Area II, as depicted on such map, to honor the more 

than 5,000 slaves and free Black persons who fought for 

American independence in the Revolutionary War; and 

Whereas the Administrator of General Services has notified 

Congress of the Administrator’s determination that such 

memorial should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the location of a commemorative work to honor the 

4 more than 5,000 slaves and free Black persons who fought 

5 in the American Revolution, authorized by section 2860 

6 of division B of Public Law 112–239 (40 U.S.C. 8903 

7 note), within Area I as described on the map entitled 

8 ‘‘Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs’’, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HJ 120 RDS 

1 numbered 869/86501 B and dated June 24, 2003, is ap2 proved. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Arthur WHITLEY, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-5414

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District denied.
George W. FISHER, Petitioner v. John Gregory MERMELSTEIN, et al.

No. 19-6130

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Luis David MORENO-PENA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9791

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.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1236 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the inclusion of a behavioral 

health professional on any physical evaluation board that considers issues 

of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental 

health condition. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the inclusion of a behavioral health professional on any physical 

evaluation board that considers issues of post-traumatic 

stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental 

health condition. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1236 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROFES2 SIONALS ON PHYSICAL EVALUATION 

3 BOARDS. 

4 Section 1222 of title 10, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(d) INCLUSION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROFES8 SIONAL.—(1) If a physical evaluation board will consider 

9 issues related to post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic 

10 brain injury, or other mental health condition, the physical 

11 evaluation board must include a behavioral health profes12 sional as a member of the board. The behavioral health 

13 professional shall serve in lieu of the medical member of 

14 the physical evaluation board unless, as a result of the 

15 health-related issues before the board, the board would 

16 benefit from the presence of both a behavioral health pro17 fessional and medical member. 

18 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘behavioral health 

19 professional’ means a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, li20 censed clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced prac21 tice registered nurse.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Jaime Ignacio ESTRADA, Petitioner v. Martin BITER, Warden

No. 19-6117

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

*538Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2018382EN.01000101.xml

| 23.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9092 — EQT Fund Management/Saur)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 382/01)

On 15 October 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:

| — | 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 32018M9092. 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 32018M9092. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
John Edward ROACH, Jr., Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 19M83

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
EXHIBIT 4.10

THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE

FIRSTWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN

               This
Third Amendment to the Firstwave Technologies, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan (the
“Amendment”) is made as of the 2nd day of May 2002, by Firstwave
Technologies, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”).


WITNESSETH:

               WHEREAS,
the Company established the Firstwave Technologies, Inc. 1993
Stock Option Plan and amended such plan May 12, 1998 and May 14, 2001(the “Plan”);

               WHEREAS,
Section 15 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the
Company to amend the Plan at any time without shareholder approval; provided,
however, that the Board of Directors may condition any amendment on the
approval of the shareholders of the Company if such approval is necessary or
advisable with respect to tax, securities or other applicable laws to which the
Company, the Plan, optionees or eligible employees are subject: and

               WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors has authorized and directed, subject
to such shareholder approval, the increase by 50,000 the total number of Shares
which may be granted or awarded under the Plan.

               NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing
premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the Plan is amended as
follows:

	
   
  	
  3.
  	
  By deleting the first sentence of Section 4 and
  substituting the following:
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
   
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
  “The Company has authorized and reserved for
  issuance upon the exercise of Options and Formula Options pursuant to the
  Plan an aggregate of 516,667 shares (post-split) of no par value common stock
  of the Company (the “Shares”).
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
   
  
	
   
  	
  4.
  	
  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date set
  forth above.  Except as hereby
  amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
  



               IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned does hereby execute this

Amendment as of the date set forth above.

	
   
  	
   
  	
  FIRSTWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
   
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
  By:
  	
   
  	
  /s/ Richard T. Brock
  	
   
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
   
  	
  



  	
  



  	
   
  
	
   
  	
   
  	
   
  	
  Richard T. Brock, President and

  Chief Executive Officer
William SMITH, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-6522

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Michael LOWRY, Robert Mulgrew, and Thomasine Tynes, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-1581

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Lewis F. CARTER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-1583

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
William RUPERT, Petitioner v. Susan BOND, et al.

No. 19-505

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Frizzell Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General.

No. 18-8841.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET-WTI - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                      Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/22/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      487,414
COMMITMENTS
 110,950   25,980  116,246  242,070  330,652  469,266  472,878   18,148   14,536

CHANGES FROM 07/15/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -24,704)
  24,030  -18,817   -8,631  -41,027    1,662  -25,628  -25,786      924    1,082

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    22.8      5.3     23.8     49.7     67.8     96.3     97.0      3.7      3.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      140)
      42       32       58       60       61      129      125
```

----

Updated July 25, 2014
# C_2017444EN.01000801.xml

| 23.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 444/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 444/8

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2017/C 444/09)

The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P1, as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive referred to in the preamble and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P1 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1) and (2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:

| The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy |
| --- |
| attn.: Mr J.L. Rosch, Energy and Environment Directorate |
| Bezuidenhoutseweg 73 |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |

The Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

attn.: Mr J.L. Rosch, Energy and Environment Directorate

Bezuidenhoutseweg 73

Postbus 20401

2500 EK Den Haag

NEDERLAND

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling Mr E.J. Hoppel on the following telephone number: +31 703797762.

---