alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009099EN.01001201.xml

| 30.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/12

---

Re-notification of a previously notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5454 — DSV/Vesterhavet/DFDS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 99/10

| 1. | On 30 January 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Vesterhavet A/S (‘Vesterhavet’, Denmark) and DSV A/S (‘DSV’, Denmark) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of DFDS A/S (‘DFDS’, Denmark) by way of share swap. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 January 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Vesterhavet A/S (‘Vesterhavet’, Denmark) and DSV A/S (‘DSV’, Denmark) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of DFDS A/S (‘DFDS’, Denmark) by way of share swap.

1

| 2. | This notification has been declared incomplete on 20/02/2009. The undertakings concerned have now provided the further information required. The notification became complete within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on 20 April 2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This notification has been declared incomplete on 20/02/2009. The undertakings concerned have now provided the further information required. The notification became complete within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on 20 April 2009.

| 3. | 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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 32 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5454 — DSV/Vesterhavet/DFDS, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

3.

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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 32 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5454 — DSV/Vesterhavet/DFDS, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

1

---
#### STATE v. HENDERSON BAILEY.

(Filed 6 May, 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Shaw, J.,*October 28, 1963, Criminal Session of Guilford (High Point Division).

This is a criminal action.

Defendant is charged in the bill of indictment with the crimes of forging and uttering a false bank check. Plea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty as charged. Judgment: Active prison sentence.

The State introduced evidence tending to show that the signature of J. 0. Connor, purported maker, was forged on a check for $51, dated 1 August 1963, drawn, on the Wachovia Bank and Trust Company of High Point and payable to Thomas Davis, and that defendant had it in possession, endorsed the name of Thomas Davis thereon and negotiated it for goods and cash.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGall-iard, and James F. Bullock, Asst. Attorney General for the State.*

*Haworth, Biggs, Kuhn and Haworth and Robert L. Cecil for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The' evidence is sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for nonsuit. G.S. 15-173. When considered contextually the charge of the court complies with G.S. 1-180. Applicable principles of law were explained to the jury in a substantially correct manner. *State v. Phillips,*256 N.C. 445, 124 S.E. 2d 146; *State v. Jestes,*185 N.C. 735, 117 S.E. 385; *State v. Peterson,*129 N.C. 556, 40 S.E. 9. We find from the record no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEAN DELLINGER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv323/RS-EMT

INTERNATIONAL RARITIES CORPORATION

and INTERNATIONAL RARITIES

HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Defendant International Rarities Holdings, Inc.’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees And

Costs (Doc. 29) is denied.

ORDERED on January 12, 2011. 

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

GREGORY WALTER KLIPSTEIN 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 92 DB 2015 (No. 59 RST 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 84221 

(Philadelphia) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated August 19, 2015, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Gregory Walter Klipstein, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the 

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the 

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation 

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
#### STATE v. BANDY

No. 177 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 188.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1972.
#### GEORGE L. BRANNOCK and HOYT C. HOILMAN v. ZONING BOARD of ADJUSTMENT: J. A. HANCOCK, Chairman; CARL DULL, JR., Vice Chairman; ROY SETZER; A. T. HARRINGTON; C. C. SMITHDEAL, JR.; DOUGLAS B. ELAM; and WILLIAM F. THOMAS.

(Filed 30 October 1963.)

1. Administrative Law § 3; Municipal Corporations § 26—

Tie fact of changes in membership of a municipal board of adjustment between the date of the original hearing and the date of approval of an application granting a discretionary permit, is immaterial, since changes in membership of an administrative board do not break the continuity of the board.

2. Municipal Corporations § 25—

The issuance of a building permit by a municipal board of adjustment within its discretionary power under the zoning code will no>t be disturbed on appeal when the board makes ample findings to sustain the action.

Appeal by petitioners from. *Fountain, J.,*July 22, 1963 Civil Term (Second Week) FoRsyth Superior Court.

On May 28, 1962, J. C. Caudle, owner of a vacant lot on the south side of Cornwallis Street near the old Rural Hall Road in Winston-Salem, applied itouth'e zoning authorities for a special permit to use the lot for automobile parking purposes. The lot is in an area zoned Residence A-2 but/is adjacent to a Business B district. The Zoning Director approved the plan. After notice and 'hearing, the Zoning Board of Adjustment ordered that a special permit be issued.

The petitioners, owners of lots across the street, applied to the Superior Court for and obtained a *writ of certiorari*to review the order granting the permit. After hearing, the Superior Court remanded the proceeding to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for further consideration. After a further .hearing and findings, the Board approved the plan and issued the permit. Upon review in the Superior Court, Judge Fountain'made detailed findings and adjudged: *.*. (T)hat the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Winston-Salem approving the issuance of a special use permit to J. C. Caudle to use the property referred to in the application as an automobile parking lot under section 48-13 (a) (8) of the Winston-Salem City Code be and the same is hereby affirmed.”

From this order the petitioners appealed.

*Weston P. Hatfield, C. Edwin Allman, Jr., for 'petitioner appellants.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Bice by W. F. Womble for respondent appellees.*

*427Per Curiam.

The petitioners raise a number of objections to tibe granting of the special use permit, among them that tibe membership of the Zoning Board of Adjustment changed between the original 'hearing ,and the final approval of the application. However, the changes in membership did mot break the continuity of the Board. The new members had access to .the minutes and records of the various healings and the required majority participated and joined in all decisions. The Zoning Code provides the conditions under which special permits may issue. The findings .are ample to .sustain the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in issuing the special use permit under its discretionary powers. The order of Judge Fountain is

Affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3077

THOMAS W. MARTINETTE,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in DC3443060842-I-2.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of Thomas W. Martinette's unopposed motion to voluntarily

dismiss his petition for review,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

APR 1 2009	

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILED

US- COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Gregory T. Rinckey, Esq.

Tara K. Hogan, Esq.

s8

ISSUED AS A MANDATE:

APR 1 2009

APR 0 1 2009

JAN nORMLY

CLERK
Exhibit
      10(l)




Mike
        Greene
 Employment
        Arrangements
  Since
        March 1, 2006, TXU Corp. (the “Company”) has employed Mike Greene, who is
        the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TXU Power on an
        at-will
        employee basis. The Company pays Mr. Greene an annual salary equal to
        $507,000, and Mr. Greene is eligible to participate in all compensation and
        benefit plans of the Company in which similarly situated executives are eligible
        to participate, which currently include the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive
        Plan, the TXU Corp. 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. Salary Deferral
        Plan, the TXU Executive Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical
        Examination Program, the TXU Second Supplemental Retirement Plan, the TXU
        Corp.
        Executive Change in Control Policy and the TXU Corp. 2005 Executive Severance
        Plan. Additionally, Mr. Greene participates in the TXU Deferred and Incentive
        Compensation Plan and the TXU Split Dollar Life Insurance
        Program.
#### SUGGS v. HOAGLIN

No. 143 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 620.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANGELA ROSARIO

- SANTOS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3142

[ July 12, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Cynthia L. Cox , Judge; L.T. Case No. 31

- 2015

- CF

000298B

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Atto rney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

G ROSS , J.

Angela Rosario

- Santos appeals her conviction and sentence for first degree petit theft. Because the state failed to adequately prove the stolen property was valued at $100 or more, we reverse and re mand for the entry of a judgment of guilt for second degree petit theft.

At trial, the Walmart security guard who apprehended appellant testified that he observed appellant and another woman leave the store with a shopping cart full of some paid

- for items and some unpaid

- for items. The security guard did not testify to the value of the stolen items. The police officer who responded to Walmart took several photos of the items in the shopping cart, which were admitted into evidence. One photo shows a ssorted meats, but no price tags. T he officer did not testif y to value.

In response to appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on the state’s failure to establish value, the prosecutor asserted that some of the prices in the meat photo “may add up to over $100,” but admitted she- 2

- did not get a chance to “really look that closely” at the photo . During closing argument, the prosecutor conceded that the state did not “have an exact value” o f the unpaid

- for items, but told the jury to use their common

sense.

“ A conviction for first

- degree petit theft requires competent substantial evidence showing that the defendant stole property with a ‘value’ at the time o f the theft between $100 and $300. ” Sanchez v. State , 101 So. 3d 1283, 1286 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2012) (citing § 812.014(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010)).

“ Where the state fails to prove that the stolen property is worth at least $100, a conviction for first degree pe tit theft must be reduced to second degree petit theft. ” Ortiz v. State , 36 So. 3d 901, 902 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2010).

Here, the state provided no evidence of the value of the stolen items. It is theoretically possible that the fair market value of an item could be determined to exceed $100 on common sense alone, for instance, if the item was a classic Picasso painting . T hat fact patter n is not present in this case. A photo of assorted meats, without more, is not competent evidence of value to support a co nviction of first degree petit theft.

W e reverse the conviction and sentence for first degree petit theft and remand for the entry of a judgment of conviction and sentence for second degree petit theft.

Reversed and remanded

.

G ERBER , C.J., and K UNTZ , J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2009038EN.01S00301.xml

| 17.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Walter S.
Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to
his/her 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 condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/  WALTER S. WOLTOSZ
-----------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
November 24, 2004


/S/  MOMOKO A. BERAN
-----------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
November 24, 2004

(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 67304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5854]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-IM Bank): Correction

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory committee was established by Public Law 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Houser, 202-565-3232.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 19, 2007, in FR Doc. 07-5717, 
on page 65021, in the middle column, in line 21, correct the ``Time and 
Place'' caption to read:
    Time and Place: Thursday, December 6, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 12 
p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 
1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    Dated: November 21, 2007.
Kamil P. Cook,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07-5854 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

PD-0811-08

GLENN RYDEL ARMSTRONG, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted in 1993 of aggravated assault and sentenced to 99 years. His

conviction was affirmed on appeal. Armstrong v. State, No. 05-92-01851-CR slip op. (Tex.

App.–Dallas Nov. 26, 1996). In 2006, appellant filed a post-conviction motion for DNA

testing. The trial court denied the motion.

The court of appeals upheld the denial of the motion. Armstrong v. State, No. 05-07-

00117-CR slip op. (Tex. App.–Dallas Dec. 11, 2007). The court held that although identity

was an issue in the case, exculpatory DNA results excluding appellant would not have
GLENN RYDEL ARMSTRONG – 2

resulted in a different outcome because there was sufficient other competent evidence

connecting appellant to the crime. Id. at 8-9. 

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review, contending in part that the

court of appeals’ holding that the lone attacker’s identity is in issue, yet exculpatory DNA

results would not establish innocence, is illogical and contradictory, and is at odds with this

Court’s opinion in Blacklock v. State, 235 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

This Court recently handed down Esparza v. State, PD-1616-07 slip op. at 17 (Tex.

Crim. App. May 13, 2009), in which we held that the court of appeals’ decision to uphold the

trial court’s denial of the post-conviction DNA motion because “there [was] sufficient

evidence, besides DNA evidence, to establish guilt . . . conflicts with our unanimous opinion

in Blacklock.” We further held that non-DNA evidence connecting the appellant to the

crime, such as eye-witness identification, “is of no consequence in considering whether [the

appellant] has established that, by a preponderance of the evidence, exculpatory DNA tests

would prove his innocence.” Id. at 18.

The court of appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Esparza. We

summarily grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the

court of appeals, and remand this case to that court to reconsider in light of Esparza.

DELIVERED: JUNE 24, 2009

DO NOT PUBLISH
|   | (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 fully presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |                         | Franchise      Holdings International, Inc.   |
|---------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      April 27, 2009 | By:                          | /s/ A.      J. Boisdrenghien                       |
|                      | A.      J. Boisdrenghien     |
|                      | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                      | Chief      Financial Officer |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARNIN ANTONIO VALDEZ

- BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 08

- 73560 Agency No. A094

- 325

- 689

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 25, 2016 ** Before: LEAVY, GRABER and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.
Arnin Antonio Valdez

- Bonilla, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

* 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

NOV 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 08

- 73560

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008)

. W e deny the petition for review.
Vald ez - Bonilla does not challenge the agency’s determination that he did not establish past persecution. See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Sub stantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that ,

even if Valdez

- Bonilla had timely filed his asylum application, he failed to
establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution

. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ; see also INS. v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it [.]”) . Thus, we deny the petition for review
as to Valdez

- Bonilla’s asylum claim.
Because Val dez

- Bonilla failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency ’s determination that3 08

- 73560

Valdez

- Bonilla failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of H onduras.
Se e Blandino

- Medina v. Holder , 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitio ner did not establish CAT eligibility where he presented a “series of worst

- case scenarios” rather than “hard evidence of a probability” of torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 1:10-cv-00146-SPM-GRJ Document 40 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:10-cv-00146-SPM-GRJ Document 40 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:10-cv-00146-SPM-GRJ Document 40 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 3