alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011190EN.01003701.xml

| 30.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/37

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6259 — Covéa/Bipiemme Vita)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2011/C 190/09)

1.

On 17 June 2011, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which the undertaking Covéa (France), a Société de Groupe d'Assurance Mutuelle (SGAM, a group of mutual insurance organisations), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation through MMA IARD Assurances Mutuelles, MMA Vie Assurances Mutuelles, MAAF Assurances and Assurances de France (undertakings all belonging to the Covéa group) control of the whole of Bipiemme Vita SpA (Italy), by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Covéa: managing financial links between mutual insurance organisations and other institutions within France's mutual sector; administering holdings in insurance and reinsurance undertakings, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Covéa: managing financial links between mutual insurance organisations and other institutions within France's mutual sector; administering holdings in insurance and reinsurance undertakings,

| — | for Bipiemme: life and non-life insurance in Italy. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Bipiemme: life and non-life insurance in Italy.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC 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 EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

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), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6259 — Covéa/Bipiemme Vita, to the following address:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).

2

---
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-13008, 333-125027, 333-137105, 333-145713 and 333-153069) pertaining to the VimpelCom 2000 Stock Option Plan and the Amended andRestated VimpelCom 2000 Stock Option Plan of our report dated May 6, 2009, except for the adoption of SFAS 160 as described in Note 2, as to which the date is December 4, 2009 and Note 23, as to which the date is March 5, 2010, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Open Joint Stock Company Vimpel-Communications (“VimpelCom”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 and our report dated May 6, 2009 except for the effects of the material weakness described in the sixthparagraph of that report, as to which the date is March 5, 2010, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of VimpelCom as of December 31, 2008, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of VimpelCom, for theyear ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLC 

Moscow, Russia 

March 18, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cr31-RH

JIMMY D. HOWARD,

 Defendant. 

______________________________/

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND PLEA

JIMMY D. HOWARD, Defendant, moves for a continuance of the trial scheduled in the

above-styled cause for September 6, 2011, in Tallahassee, and as grounds therefore states:

1. Defendant appeared in this Court May 19, 2011, and entered a plea of not guilty to the

indictment. The Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent him.

2. Defendant has been scheduled to enter a plea of guilty in this case on Friday, September 2,

2011. Consequently, both parties have suspended preparations for the trial scheduled for

Tuesday, September 6. 

3. Undersigned attorney’s daughter is scheduled to give birth in Atlanta later this week and he

wishes to be present.

4.. Assistant United States Attorney Karen Rhew-Miller has no objection to this request 

Case 4:11-cr-00031-RH-WCS Document 18 Filed 08/31/11 Page 1 of 2
-2-

5. Thisrequest is made in the interests ofjustice and is not intended to cause unnecessary delay.

THEREFORE, Defendant, JIMMY D. HOWARD respectfully requests this Honorable

Court grant this request and continue the trial in this matter and reschedule the plea now scheduled

for Friday, September 2, until the week of September 6.

Respectfully submitted,

RANDOLPH P. MURRELL 

Federal Public Defender

s/William R. Clark, Jr. 

William R. Clark Jr.

Florida Bar No. 0592897

Asst. Fed. Public Defender

227 N. Bronough Street, Ste. 4200

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(850) 942-8818

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by

electronic delivery to the Office of Assistant United States Attorney, Karen Rhew Miller, 111 N.

Adams Street, 4th Floor, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, this August 31, 2011.

 s/William R. Clark, Jr. 

 WILLIAM R. CLARK, JR.

Case 4:11-cr-00031-RH-WCS Document 18 Filed 08/31/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:01cr76/RV

JORGE MACHADO

 /

ORDER

Defendant Machado has moved to preclude the United States Probation Officer

from contacting the defendant’s employer. (Doc. 50)

It appears that the defendant has intentionally falsified his application for this

employment by failing to acknowledge or note this arrest or conviction. This is a

matter of grave concern. Further, there is reason to believe that a risk exists in which

the defendant could engage in unlawful conduct similar to the offense of conviction.

Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

However, the supervising United States Probation Officer is granted some

discretion in not notifying the defendant’s current employer as long as the defendant’s

job-related travel is restricted to the Southern District of Florida and the officer is able

to perform risk control activities as outlined in the officer’s attached letter of August

12, 2005, which is made a part of this order. If those conditions cannot be met, or

if the officer cannot be satisfied that the risk is absolutely minimal, or if the defendant

changes employers, but continues in trucking activity, then notification is required.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2005.

 /s/ /Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cr-00076-RV Document 51 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5355 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5355

To amend chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify certain 
due process rights of Federal employees serving in sensitive positions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2018

   Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr. Wittman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify certain 
due process rights of Federal employees serving in sensitive positions, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 7701 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
    ``(k)(1) An employee or applicant for employment appealing an 
action arising from a determination of ineligibility for a sensitive 
position may not be denied Board review of the merits of such 
determination if--
            ``(A) the position is not one that requires a security 
        clearance or access to classified information; and
            ``(B) such action is otherwise appealable.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `sensitive 
position' means any position so designated pursuant to Executive Order 
10450 (5 U.S.C. 7311 note) or, if superseded, a successor Executive 
order.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to all appeals, without 
exception, that are pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed March 10, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00676

- CV

____________ PETRA MUELLER , Appellant

V.
NORBERT MUELLER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 250th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 16

- 003688



### ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 26, 2018 . Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 23, 2018 . The notice of appeal is defective.
An incorrect cause number on the notice of appeal does not defeat the jurisdiction of t he court of appeals if the instrument is a “bona fide attempt” to invoke appellate court jurisdiction. San Antonio v. Rodriguez , 828 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Tex. 1992). An appellant should be given an opportunity to amend a defective Formatted: Different first page header2

perfecting instrument before the court of appeals may dismiss an appeal. Grand Prairie I.S.D. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc. , 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991).
Appellant is ordered to file an amended notice of appeal reflecting the

correct trial court cause number.

The amended n oti ce of appeal shall be filed on or before March 20, 2020

. If appellant does not comply with this order, the court will consider dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost an d Justices Wise and Hassan.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40169 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1418-ALL

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Manuel Hernandez-Gonzalez (Hernandez) pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to reentry into the United States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Hernandez argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release and that this condition should therefore be vacated. Hernandez’sNo. 05-40169 -2- claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , 428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Hernandez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Hernandez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION ENTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 12/31/98 FILED ON
FORM 10-KSB, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNECE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
                                
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                              675,969
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                  3,410,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>       5,565,028
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      0
<LOANS>                          24,566,221
<ALLOWANCE>                         433,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   36,350,825
<DEPOSITS>                       29,321,903
<SHORT-TERM>                         22,241
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 136,879
<LONG-TERM>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                          3,792,290
<OTHER-SE>                        3,077,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   36,350,825
<INTEREST-LOAN>                   1,641,616
<INTEREST-INVEST>                   219,451
<INTEREST-OTHER>                    210,458
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                  2,071,525
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                  779,294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  780,550
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>             1,290,975
<LOAN-LOSSES>                       385,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                   1,276,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (177,413)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         (177,413)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                           (65,329)
<NET-INCOME>                       (242,742)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.53)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                          5.52
<LOANS-NON>                                0
<LOANS-PAST>                               0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                      72,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                         23,000
<RECOVERIES>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                    385,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                 385,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RONALD DECHOW,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00105-MP-GRJ

GLEIM PUBLICATIONS INC,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 4, Motion to Extend Time to Serve a Responsive

Pleading to the Complaint by Gleim Publications, Inc. Defendant moves the Court for a one

week extension of time to respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff does not oppose the requested

extension of time. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading to the

Complaint, Doc. 4, is GRANTED.

2. Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before July 26, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00105-MP-GRJ Document 5 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 8
                                                                     ---------

                      INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY S.P.A.
                      ---------------------------------

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

All of  our  subsidiaries  are  wholly  owned  except  for  Instrumentation
Laboratory  (Lietuva) B.I., of which we own 67%. The following is a list of
the significant subsidiaries which we directly or indirectly own:

                                                            Country of
      Name                                                  Incorporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Instrumentation Laboratory GmbH                          Germany
   Instrumentation Laboratory Ges.mbH                       Austria
   Instrumentation Laboratory U.K. Ltd.                     United Kingdom
   Instrumentation Laboratory S.A.                          France
   Instrumentation Laboratory Belgium N.V.                  Belgium
   Instrumentation Laboratory Group B.V.                    Holland
   Instrumentation Laboratory (Netherlands) B.V.            Holland
   Instrumentation Laboratory Espana, S.L.                  Spain
   Instrumentation Laboratory Company                       U.S.A.
   IL Sensor Systems, Inc.                                  U.S.A.
   IL Diagnostic, S.A. de C.V.                              Mexico
   Medical Laboratory Automation Inc.                       U.S.A.
   Lessix AB                                                Sweden
   Chromogenix Holding AB                                   Sweden
   Chromogenix AB                                           Sweden
   Instrumentation Laboratory (Lietuva) B.I.                Lithuania
Exhibit 32

ISONICS CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
Chief Executive Officer

To my knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2005, containing financial statements for the year then
ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.

June 28,
2005

|/s/JAMES E. ALEXANDERJames E. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
Chief Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2005, containing financial statements for the year then
ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.

June 28,
2005

|/s/JOHN SAKYSJohn Sakys, Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 



QuickLinks
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - 32 CFR Part 68

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is removing 32 CFR Part 68, “Provision of Free Public Education for Eligible Children Pursuant to Section 6, Public Law 81-874.” The part has served the purpose for which it was intended and is no longer valid.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         December 11, 2007.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

L.M. Bynum, 703-696-4970.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    DoD Directive 1342.16 was originally codified as 32 CFR Part 68. This Directive was canceled by DoD Directive 1342.20. Copies of DoD Directive 1342.20 may be obtained at                     *http://www.dtic.mil/​whs/​directives/​.*

# List of Subject in 32 CFR Part 68

      - Elementary and secondary education
      - Government employees
      - Military personnel

Accordingly, by the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by removing part 68:

# PART 68—[REMOVED]

Dated: December 5, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

[FR Doc. 07-6006 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-05-172-CV

DEL WARE COMPANIES	APPELLANT

		V.

ARGYLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL	APPELLEE

DISTRICT

	----------

	FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On August 5, 2005, we notified appellant that its brief had not been filed as required by rule 38.6(a).   See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

									PER CURIAM  			

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 25, 2005