alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018325EN.01001901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/19 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9063 — Synnex/Convergys)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 325/11)

1.

On 7 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018325EN.01001901-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Synnex Corporation (‘Synnex’, United States), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Convergys Corporation (‘Convergys’, United States). |

Synnex acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Convergys.

The concentration is accomplished through a two-step merger process resulting in the creation of ‘Concentrix CVG Corporation’, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SYNNEX, which will include the Convergys business. As a result of the transaction, Convergys will no longer be a publicly held corporation.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Synnex: provision of business-to-business services that help clients and business partners grow and enhance their customer-engagement strategies,

—   for Convergys: provision of customer relationship management business process outsourcing services to client businesses, including through the provision and operation of ‘call centers’.

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.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018325EN.01001901-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

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.9063 — Synnex/Convergys

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_2018325EN.01001901-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018325EN.01001901-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

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

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000919557
<NAME> Smith Barney Pacific Basin Portfolio
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>005
   <NAME>Travelers Series Fund Inc.

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Oct-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      Oct-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>              14,256,318
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>             14,156,102
<RECEIVABLES>                       1,094,520
<ASSETS-OTHER>                      1,684,955
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     16,935,577
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                    0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>           2,553,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                 2,553,045
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                             0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           17,224,491
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               1,804,104
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               2,159,857
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                   0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            (2,737,159)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                    0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>             (104,800)
<NET-ASSETS>                       14,382,532
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                      85,985
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      23,209
<OTHER-INCOME>                              0
<EXPENSES-NET>                        315,981
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>              (206,787)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>            1,978,676
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          (9,267,042)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              (7,495,153)
<EQUALIZATION>                              0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>              73,666
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                    0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                       0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>               775,886
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>         1,138,397
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     6,758
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>            (11,045,990)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>              (373,437)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>          (4,674,661)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                     0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                 224,052
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                       315,981
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               24,724,026
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  11.770
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (0.100)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                (3.670)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0.030
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0.000
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     7.970
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                          1.28



</TABLE>
Lawrence T. TYLER, Petitioner v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.

No. 19-6434

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Charles W. GRAY, Petitioner, v. INDIANA

No. 18-9088

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District denied.
Brandon Gregory LEAL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6554

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
POWER ANALYTICS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OPERATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.

No. 19-43

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 115 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 115

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give 
 States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 
        by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2014

Mr. Bishop of Utah (for himself, Mr. Walberg, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Lamborn, 
 Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Duncan of South 
Carolina, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mrs. Blackburn, 
 Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. 
Griffith of Virginia, Mr. Stewart, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. 
Graves of Georgia) 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 to give 
 States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 
        by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States.

    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--

    ``Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be 
repealed by the several States, and such repeal shall be effective when 
the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States approve 
resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same 
provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
JUVENILE FEMALE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7887.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20800

Summary Calendar

FELICIA N. JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GREENWAY MERCEDES; MERCEDES BENZ OF HOUSTON GREENWAY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-2367

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felicia N. Jones appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “The district court must dismiss [an] action

if it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Randall D. Wolcott, M.D.,

P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing FED. R. CIV. P.

12(h)(3)). A district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

reviewed de novo. Id.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 1, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20800 Document: 00512293168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2013
No. 12-20800

Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, “even pro se litigants

must brief arguments in order to preserve them.” Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d

582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993) and FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)). Jones has failed to make a coherent

argument challenging the district court’s determination that it lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over the action. When an appellant fails to identify any error

in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed

that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748

(5th Cir. 1987). Jones has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s

dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id.

Because Jones’s appeal presents no legal points arguable on their merits, the

appeal IS DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

We recently issued Jones a sanction warning in Jones v. Vouitton, No. 12-

20562, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. May 28, 2013). Jones filed her notice of appeal and

her brief in the instant case before we issued that warning. We repeat our

WARNING that any future frivolous pleadings filed by her in this court or in any

court subject to the jurisdiction of this court will subject her to sanctions. Jones

should review any pending matters to ensure that they are not frivolous.

2

 Case: 12-20800 Document: 00512293168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2013
Lamont Dejuan HIGGS, Petitioner, v. Warden WILSON.

No. 19-401

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alesco Financial Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, James J. McEntee, III and John J. Longino, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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 conditions and result of operations of the Company.

Date: May 8, 2008



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James J. McEntee, III                                  
|James J. McEntee, III Chief Executive Officer and
President
|                                                           
|/s/ John J. Longino                                        
|John J. Longino Chief Financial
Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RAFAEL PAHUA MARTINEZ, a.k.a.

Miguel Pahua Martinez, a.k.a. Enrique 

Pahua Montano, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10102 

D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00140-MCE-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Rafael Pahua Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 252-month sentence for conspiracy to 

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10102 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), Martinez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for 

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided 

Martinez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se 

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Martinez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss 

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
# C_2018444EN.01001001.xml

| 10.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 444/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 444/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9153 — Caisse des dépôts et consignations/Meridiam/FICA HPCI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 444/04)

On 30 November 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 French 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 32018M9153. 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 32018M9153. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
David SHU, Petitioner v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General.

No. 18-9373

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
----

Status of EC accession to UN/ECE regulations in the area of vehicle approval as of 31 December 2005

(2006/C 67/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Commission publishes hereafter a table summarising the state of UN/ECE regulations as last amended (annexed in the 1958 Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions) to which the EC has acceded as of 31 December 2005.

----

(1)  This column lists the latest amendment to the Regulation concerned that the European Communities has acceded to by 31.12.2005. Some of the more recent series of amendments or supplements to the series of amendments will enter into force after that date. The date of entry into force of these amendments should be checked in the latest version of the UN-ECE status document TRANS/WP.29/343/Rev.xx, available at:

http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html.

(2)  All relevant corrigenda up until 31.12.2005 have also been adopted, unless otherwise indicated.

(3)  This Regulation has not entered into force as of 31.12.2005.

----
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund of Smith Barney
Investment Funds Inc. (the Fund) for the year ended September 30,
2002, 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 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 accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud 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 internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in 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 fraud 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 internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of
September 30, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                  KPMG LLP

New York, New York
November 13, 2002
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Modena 4 Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher
Penner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Christopher Penner
--------------------------
Christopher Penner
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

June 14, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.J.S.
PETITION OF: T.B., MOTHER

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.B.S.
PETITION OF: T.B., MOTHER : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : No. 89 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

No. 90 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court
ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED .
FIRST STATE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, Petitioner, v. Tamra N. ROBINSON.

No. 19-138

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 19-558

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Robert WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 19-5997

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County denied.