alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01046201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/462 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/462

---

(2004/C 84 E/0537)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0857/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject:   Purchase of Corus by Outokumpu

Subject:

Following the purchase by the Finnish company Outokumpu of the stainless steel business of the Anglo-Dutch company Corus, will the Commission say what action it took to ensure that the purchase did not create an over-concentration of ownership in this industrial sector?

What effect on competition and employment in the sector does the Commission think the purchase will have?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

(28 April 2003)

As there is no single operation that can be regarded as the purchase of Corus's stainless steel business by Outokumpu it may be useful to outline the main developments in the process. Between 1992 and 1994 there was a series of operations through which British Steel plc acquired joint control with Swedish investment institutions of Avesta Sheffield a company combining British Steel's stainless steel business with the Swedish stainless steel producer, Avesta. Subsequently, the Swedish institutions withdrew in two stages so that by the end of 1994 British Steel plc had sole control of Avesta Sheffield.

In 2000 Corus and Outokumpu notified a concentration to the Commission which would combine their respective stainless steel businesses in Avesta Polarit. This operation was cleared on 4 December 2000 under both the ECSC Treaty and the Merger Regulation (1). After an extensive first phase investigation the Commission concluded that the concentration would not give rise to competition problems. The clearance decisions (2) are available on Directorate General Competition's web site.

1

2

The final operation occurred on 28 August 2002 when the Commission authorised the acquisition by Outokumpu of sole control of Avesta Polarit through the purchase of Corus's minority interest (3). This operation had no direct effect on either competition or employment as it involved only a change from joint control by Coras and Outokumpu to sole control by Outokumpu. Outokumpu subsequently bought out the remaining minority shareholders.

3

In assessing the effects of the concentrations falling within its jurisdiction the Commission is required by the Merger Regulation (4) to base its analysis on competition considerations. It does not therefore directly consider the effects of a particular operation on employment. However stable long-term employment is best served by competitive companies operating on a level playing field, conditions which Community competition policy fosters.

4

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 24 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

1

(2)  COMP/M.2180 - Outokumpu/Avesta and COMP/ECSC.1342 - Outokumpu/Avesta.

2

(3)  COMP/M.2900 - Outokumpu/Avesta Polarit.

3

(4)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

4

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
The Board of Directors
IRI International Corporation:
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of IRI International Corporation of our report dated February 27, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of IRI International Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for year ended
December 31, 1997, the nine-months ended December 31, 1996 and the year ended
March 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K/A of IRI International Corporation.
 
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
 
Houston, Texas
April 28, 1998
 
                                       36
STATE of North Carolina v. Yul V. BANNERMAN.

No. 384P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, for Bannerman.

Gayl M. Manthei, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of August 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00359-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-006231-1

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MARCUS A. MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

PRINCETON VENTURES GROUP, LLC, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On March 25, 2019, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as 

the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, he filed with the 

court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the 

brief’s untimely filing and his need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded him an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 2, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EDISON
MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         650,775
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  375,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,126
<INVENTORY>                                    324,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,386,893
<PP&E>                                      12,196,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                 569,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,531,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,556,890
<BONDS>                                      6,942,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          337,480
<PREFERRED>                                    118,054
<COMMON>                                        64,130
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,790,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,531,826
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,398,980
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  930,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (370,507)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (76,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (27,772)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       17,690
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,995)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
In the Matter of C.N. and J.N., Minor Children appealed by Respondent Mother.

No. 292P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Christy E. Wilhelm, for Mother.

*600William R. Shilling, for Macon County DSS.

Mary Holliday, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of June 2007 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
# C_2023329EN.01003301.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/33

---

Action brought on 27 July 2023 — Kreissparkasse Köln v SRB

(Case T-450/23)

(2023/C 329/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kreissparkasse Köln (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK v SRB.

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2426/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Harmonisation of tax on the income from the savings of non-resident Union citizens and abolition of banking secrecy

Knowing that:

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

----

(1)OJ L 157, 26.6.2003.

----
EXHIBIT 10.4


 


ENDORSEMENT
TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Precision
Optics Corporation, Inc.

New York, New York

November 15, 2010


 


The 10%
Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended
December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 15,
2010 and October 15, 2010 and September 15, 2010 (the “Note”) of
Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of Arnold Schumsky (the “Holder”) in an aggregate
principal amount of $50,000 and to which this Endorsement is affixed is hereby
amended in the following respects:


 


1.                                       The term “Stated
Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “November 30, 2010.”


 


2.                                       Except as
expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and
effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the
Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective
duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PRECISION OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  



 


	
  Accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Arnold
  Schumsky 

  	
   

  
	
  Arnold Schumsky
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5189] 

# AGENCY:

Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*], Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition, “Pompeii: Stories from an Eruption,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, from on or about October 22, 2005, to on or about March 26, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/453-8052, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-18126 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3664 

To provide for the extension of a certain hydroelectric project located in 

the State of West Virginia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the extension of a certain hydroelectric project 

located in the State of West Virginia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO COMMENCE CON4 STRUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the period speci6 fied in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

7 806) that would otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regu8 latory Commission project number 9042, the Federal En9 ergy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this Act as 

10 the ‘‘Commission’’) shall, on the request of the licensee 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3664 IS

1 of that project, and in accordance with the good faith, due 

2 diligence, and public interest requirements of, the proce3 dures of the Commission under, and other procedures 

4 specified in, that section, extend the deadline by which the 

5 licensee is required to commence construction of the 

6 project to December 6, 2009. 

7 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect 

8 with respect to the project described in that subsection 

9 on expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission 

10 under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

11 806), of the period for the commencement of construction 

12 of the project. 

13 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If a li14 cense for the project described in subsection (a) expires 

15 before the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission 

16 shall— 

17 (1) reinstate the license, effective as of that 

18 date of expiration; and 

19 (2) extend the deadline by which the licensee of 

20 the project is required to commence construction of 

21 the project to December 6, 2009. 

22 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LICENSE PERIOD. 

23 Notwithstanding the period of a license specified in 

24 section 6 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 799) that 

25 would otherwise apply to the project described in section 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 3664 IS

1 1(a), the Commission shall, on the request of the licensee 

2 of that project, and in accordance with such terms and 

3 conditions of that Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) and the 

4 Commission as are applicable to the project and the li5 cense, extend the period of the license to 60 years, as cal6 culated beginning on the date identified in the original 

7 order of the Commission issuing the license for the project. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE v. REID.

No. COA08-575.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CRS55442, 06CRS20432).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; harmless error in part; and dismissed in part.
STATE v. Joseph Edwin BROMFIELD.

No. 483P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jerry Wilson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of October 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under 7A-31:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
SAUS v. JENKINS.

No. COA07-807.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from New Hanover (05CVD2576).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.64

                              August 5, 1997


Mr. Charles R. Ofner
2110 Del Monte
Houston, Texas  77019

Re:  STOCK  OPTION  AGREEMENT DATED AS OF APRIL 24, 1997 BETWEEN  CHARLES  R.
     OFNER  AND READING & BATES CORPORATION - OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO 100,000
     SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF READING & BATES CORPORATION

Dear Charlie:

Reading  &  Bates  Corporation  (the  "Company")  requests  you  agree  to  a
rescission  of  the  stock options awarded pursuant to  the  above-referenced
agreement, subject to:  (a) completion of the transaction described  in  that
Agreement  and  Plan of Merger dated as of July 10, 1997 among,  inter  alia,
Falcon  Drilling  Company, Inc. and the Company and  (b)  such  merger  being
accounted  for  on  a "pooling of interests" basis.  If the  transaction,  as
described in such agreement, is not completed or is completed thereunder  and
accounted  for on any basis other than a "pooling of interests", the  Company
agrees  such rescission shall be of no legal effect, and the above-referenced
stock options and award agreement shall be restored to full force and effect,
as if this letter agreement had never existed.

If  the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement in the
space provided below, and return one fully executed copy of this letter to us
for our files.

                              Very truly yours,

                              READING & BATES CORPORATION


                              By:
                                   Paul B. Loyd, Jr.

                              Its: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Agreed this        day of August, 1997.


Mr. Charles R. Ofner
# The Plant Health (England) (Amendment) Order 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W+S

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 979

Plant Health, England

# The Plant Health (England) (Amendment) Order 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

7th April 2014

Laid before Parliament

14th April 2014

Coming into force in accordance with article 1(2)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Order revoked (1.7.2015) by The Plant Health (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/610), **Sch. 18**
# C_2023173EN.01002502.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/25

---

Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-172/23)

(2023/C 173/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans for all identified priority pathways and to transmit them to the Commission without delay; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans for all identified priority pathways and to transmit them to the Commission without delay;

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation 1143/2014, Ireland had three years from the adoption of the Union list to establish, implement and transmit to the Commission action plans to address the priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species of Union concern identified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation 1143/2014. The Commission had adopted the Union list referred to in Article 13 of Regulation 1143/2014 on 13 July 2016 so that the three years deadline expired on 13 July 2019.

Ireland identified three priority pathways (angling, recreational boating and transportation of habitat material) pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Regulation.

However, Ireland has established and transmitted to the Commission action plans for only two out of the three identified priority pathways.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35.

---
STATE v. Rodney Nigee Pledger TAYLOR.

No. 317PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 14, 2015.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Taylor, Rodney Nigee Pledger.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of July 2015 by Defendant to Deem Defendant-Appellee's New Brief to Have Been Timely Filed:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of July 2015."