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


C\_2018295EN.01000501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/5 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9042 — Keolis/Amey/W&B Rail Franchise)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 295/04)

1.

On 9 August 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018295EN.01000501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Keolis (UK) Limited (‘Keolis’, United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF); |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Amey Rail Limited (‘Amey’, United Kingdom), ultimately owned by Ferrovial S.A. (Spain); |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Wales and Borders Rail Franchise (‘W&B Rail Franchise’, United Kingdom). |

Keolis and Amey acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the W&B Rail Franchise.

The concentration is accomplished by way of a franchise agreement.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   Keolis: provision of public transportation services in 16 countries across the world;

—   Amey: provision of infrastructure asset management services to private and public sectors mainly in the UK;

—   W&B Rail Franchise: provision of passenger rail services across Wales, as well as services to destinations in England (on longer distance rail services originating or terminating in Wales).

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_2018295EN.01000501-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.9042 — Keolis/Amey/W&B Rail Franchise

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_2018295EN.01000501-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_2018295EN.01000501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Employment agreement for Michael Wittig



  

					
			
	EXHIBIT 10.2	  	EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT	  	 

  
 This Amendment dated December 4,
2003, is entered into by and between CyberGuard Corporation (“CyberGuard”) and Michael G. Wittig, an employee of CyberGuard (“Employee”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employee and CyberGuard are parties to an Employment Agreement dated September 30, 1998 (“Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employee and CyberGuard desire to amend the Agreement in connection with
the Employee’s appointment to the President position. 
  
 NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, CyberGuard and the Employee agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
  

	 	7.	Effective as of January 3, 2004, Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the title “Vice President Development” and replace it with “President”.


  

	 	8.	Effective as of January 3, 2004, Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the reference to “President and Chief Operating Officer” and replace it with
“Chief Executive Officer”. 

  

	 	9.	Section 4.a. is hereby amended to state that the Employee’s salary is $165,000 per year. 

  

	 	10.	Effective as of December 4, 2003, Section 7.b.(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended with respect to the Employee’s stock option agreement granted on December 4, 2003 to
purchase 40,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at $8.33 per share and any stock option agreement granted to the Employee by CyberGuard after the date hereof (each, an “Option”; collectively, the “Options”), as follows:


  
 In the event that the Employee’s
employment is terminated by the Company without Cause or by the Employee with Good Reason, then the Options shall become immediately exercisable upon such termination of employment. 
  

	 	11.	Nothing herein shall limit or restrict CyberGuard’s rights to terminate the Employee’s employment in accordance with the Agreement. 

  

	 	12.	This Amendment shall supersede any provisions of the Agreement to the extent that this Amendment conflicts with, modifies, or amends any provision of the Agreement. In all other
respects the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date above first written. 
  

									
	CYBERGUARD CORPORATION	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE
					
	 By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 David L. Manning
 Audit Committee Chairman
	 	 	 	 	 	Michael G. Wittig
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 1 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD RICHARD NEWTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LADON MOTEN, Individually and as a Police Officer in the New Mexico State Police Department; NEIL MERTZ, Individually and as Chief Deputy District Attorney for the County of Socorro; JEFF LAHANN, Individually and as Senior Trial Prosecutor for the County of Socorro,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-2212 (D.C. No. CIV-93-994-JP) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which sought t o set aside the court’s dismissal of his civil rights action. Plaintiff, who was incarcerated, instituted the underlying action under a false name and then faile d to prosecute the action after escaping from prison. The district court subsequently granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was based on improper service, fa ilure to prosecute, and Rule 11 violations. Almost three years later, plaintiff filed the present Rule 60(b) motion, in which he acknowledged that he had filed the complaint under a false name and explained that he had been unable to prose cute the action after his escape because he was hiding from authorities. The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, finding both that it was not filed wi thin a reasonable time and that it was without merit. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), this court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious.” Based upon our review of the briefs an d the record, we conclude that the present appeal is frivolous. Therefore, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma-3-

pauperis is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous . Because this appeal is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B), it count s as a “prior occasion[]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is hereby notified that three filings of cases that are dismissed or affirmed on the basis that they ar e frivolous or fail to state a claim under § 1915(g) will result in him being unable to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the quarterly report of PROLOR Biotech, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve Schaeffer,
the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(4)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/ Steve
SchaefferSteve
      SchaefferPrincipal
      Financial OfficerPROLOR
      Biotech, Inc.


November
13, 2009
Sandra G. HALE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 19-596

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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 the quarterly report of STAT Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Condie, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Douglas P. Condie

Douglas P. Condie

Chief Executive Officer

May 24, 2004
EXHIBIT
32



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned officer of
Global Diversified Marketing Group, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify to my knowledge that:



The
Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2018 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      | /s/
    Paul Adler              
|--------------------- | --------------------------------
|                      | President,
    Director,        
|                      | Chief
    Financial Officer and 
|                      | Principal
    Accounting Officer
|                      |                                 
|Date:
    May 9, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

[COMPANY LOGO]

                               Share Certificate

This is to certify that the undermentioned person(s) is/are the registered
holder(s) of fully paid shares of par value Hong Kong dollar 0.01 each as
detailed below in the share capital of TOM Online Inc. (the "Company") subject
to the memorandum and articles of association of the Company.


                                                        CODE:

                                                        NUMBER OF SHARE(S):

    Given under the securities seal of the Company on the date stated above.



[Signature]                                                         [Signature]
----------------                                                   -------------
Chairman                                                            Director

     No transfer of the whole or any portion of the above share(s) will be
               registered unless accompanied by this certificate.
  Registrar: Computershare Hong Kong Investor Services Limited, Shops 1712-1716,
         17th Floor, Hopewell Centre, 183 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong.
Danny Lee HILL, Petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 19-6567

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Trumbull County denied.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-87,426-01

EX P ARTE ST EVEN P CHERRY, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2015CR6408-W1 IN THE 226TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM BEXAR COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Ap p l icant was convicted of burg lary of a habitation and sentenc ed to thirty y ears ’ i m p ri s o n m ent as a habitual felon. The Four th Court of Appea ls dismissed Applicant’s appea l for want of jurisdiction. Cherry v. State , No. 04-16-00524- CR (Tex. App.—S an Antonio Feb. 1, 2017). Applicant’s direc t appea l was dismiss ed beca use no notice of appea l wa s t i m el y filed. Applicant filed this habea s application reque sting a late appea l, and the trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues. The habea s rec ord, howeve r, has no finding s resolving the disputed issues. We2

rema nd the habea s application to allow the trial judge to complete an evid en t i ary investigation, resolve the disputed issues, and enter finding s. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall b e re s o l v ed within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw, sha ll be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: Nove mber 1, 2017 Do not publish
Eduardo Romero MARTINEZ, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6269

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3174

_____________________________
H ARVEY B. D ONLEY ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Ass istance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

March 28, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for belated appeal following his conviction for trafficking in opium. To the extent Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of app ellate counsel on direct appeal , the petition is dismissed as untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5). To the extent Petitioner complains about actions taken by counsel during postconviction proceedings , the petition is d enied

. See Tompkins v. State , 994 So. 2d 1072, 1088 (Fla. 2008) (noting that claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel are not cognizable)

.

R OBERTS , R AY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Harvey B. Donley, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley B. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
|    |                                                                                   |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Viemed Healthcare, Inc.; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ Trae Fitzgerald |
|   | Trae FitzgeraldChief Financial Officer |
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK>
<NAME> Putnam Diversified Income Portfolio
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>      007
   <NAME>Travelers Series Fund Inc.

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Oct-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                       Oct-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>              156,000,926
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>             138,880,206
<RECEIVABLES>                        8,321,993
<ASSETS-OTHER>                          96,179
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     147,298,378
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>             4,622,657
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>            1,831,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                  6,453,961
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                              0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           158,251,253
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               13,659,122
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               13,895,033
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>           10,860,854
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                       0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            (10,737,031)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                     0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>           (17,530,659)
<NET-ASSETS>                       140,844,417
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                      439,057
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   14,029,349
<OTHER-INCOME>                               0
<EXPENSES-NET>                       1,323,606
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>             13,144,800
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>            (5,445,160)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>           (6,984,701)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                  714,939
<EQUALIZATION>                               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>          (12,792,088)
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                     0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                        0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                647,934
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>          2,092,927
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                  1,209,082
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             (15,262,264)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>             12,807,689
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>           (7,591,418)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                      0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                   0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                1,144,869
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                      1,323,606
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               151,752,481
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                   11.240
<PER-SHARE-NII>                          0.930
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 (0.880)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0.980
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                0.000
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     10.310
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                           0.87



</TABLE>
Gerald HUMBERT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7553.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 106

    To require any amounts remaining in a Member's Representational 
 Allowance at the end of a fiscal year to be deposited in the Treasury 
     and used for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2013

Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (for himself, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. 
Posey, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Nugent, Mrs. Black, and 
 Mr. Wittman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require any amounts remaining in a Member's Representational 
 Allowance at the end of a fiscal year to be deposited in the Treasury 
     and used for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Budget Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL 
              ALLOWANCES TO BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO REDUCE 
              THE FEDERAL DEBT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
amounts appropriated for Members' Representational Allowances for the 
House of Representatives for a fiscal year which remain after all 
payments are made under such Allowances for the year shall be deposited 
in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, except that in the case 
of a fiscal year for which there is no Federal budget deficit, such 
amounts shall be used to reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the 
Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
    (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration shall 
promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this 
section.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to 
fiscal year 2013 and each succeeding fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
Regina LEWIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5556

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Jemone Lawrence WALKER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6752

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Robert Eugene HARDESTY, Petitioner, v. Willis CHAPMAN, Warden.

No. 19-7012

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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