alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006274EN.01004501.xml

| 10.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/45

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus)

(2006/C 274/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 30 October 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Ryan Air Holdings Plc (‘Ryanair’, Ireland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Aer Lingus Group Plc (‘Aer Lingus’, Ireland), by way of public bid announced on 23 October 2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 October 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Ryan Air Holdings Plc (‘Ryanair’, Ireland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Aer Lingus Group Plc (‘Aer Lingus’, Ireland), by way of public bid announced on 23 October 2006.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Ryanair: low cost airline operating mainly in Europe; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Ryanair: low cost airline operating mainly in Europe;

| — | for Aer Lingus: airline operating worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Aer Lingus: airline operating worldwide.

| 3. | This notification is without prejudice to the final conclusion whether the transaction falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission according to the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This notification is without prejudice to the final conclusion whether the transaction falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission according to the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

| 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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus, to the following address:





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

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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

1

---
#### Eikenberry *v.*Westfield Stock Farm Company.

[No. 11,911.

Filed November 7, 1924.]

From Hendricks Circuit Court; *Zimri E. Dougan,*Judge.

Action between William H. Eikenberry and the Westfield Stock Farm Company. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*Overson, Manning & Healey,*for appellant.

*Oscar L. Pond*and *Clark & Nichols,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Multiemployer Notices 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Multiemployer notices

March 19, 2024
### [§2339c. Renumbered §8755]
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DAVID ROSARIO

Decided June 16, 2004

*Richard E. Condon, Jr.,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Timothy J. Sugrue,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 82 Conn. App. 691 (AC 23654), is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6057
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-6139
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-369-B)2 Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Zimmerman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Jan Paul Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Samuel Robert Queen appeals from the district court's orders denying as moot his motions for return of seized property, for an itemization of property seized, to incorporate newly discovered evidence, and for reimbursement for forfeited property. Because the government properly destroyed seized contraband, 21 U.S.C.A. §881(a) (West 1981 & Supp. 1997), prepared an itemization of property seized, and returned to Queen or his designee all of the property listed as seized from Queen, the district court properly denied the motions as moot. Queen also asserts that a greater sum of money was seized from him than that reported and returned to him, and he seeks reimbursement for damage to his property while in the possession of the government. While we affirm the denial of Queen's motions as moot, we modify the district court orders toreflect that the disposition is without prejudice to Queen's ability to pursue a remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
### §1797. Early childhood education program

The Secretary of Defense shall require that all military child development centers meet standards of operation necessary for accreditation by an appropriate national early childhood programs accrediting body.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title V, §568(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 335.)
### §1142. Implementation of plan

(a) Notwithstanding any otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law, rule, or regulation relating to financial condition, the debtor and any entity organized or to be organized for the purpose of carrying out the plan shall carry out the plan and shall comply with any orders of the court.

(b) The court may direct the debtor and any other necessary party to execute or deliver or to join in the execution or delivery of any instrument required to effect a transfer of property dealt with by a confirmed plan, and to perform any other act, including the satisfaction of any lien, that is necessary for the consummation of the plan.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2639; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, §514(a), (c), (d), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 387.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–353, §514(a), substituted "Implementation" for "Execution" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353, §514(c), struck out the comma after "shall carry out the plan".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–353, §514(d), inserted "a" after "by".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
#### § 1000.95 How is BIA's residual determined?

(a) Generally, residual information will be determined through a process that is consistent with the overall process used by the BIA. Residual information will consist of residual functions performed by the BIA, brief justification why the function is not compactible, and the estimated funding level for each residual function. Each regional office and the central office will compile a single document for distribution each year that contains all the residual information of that respective office. The development of the residual information will be based on the following principles. The BIA will:

(1) Develop uniform residual information to be used to negotiate residuals;

(2) Ensure functional consistency throughout BIA in the determination of residuals;

(3) Make the determination of residuals based upon the functions actually being performed by BIA at the respective office;

(4) Annually consult with Tribes on a region-by-region basis as requested by Tribes/Consortia; and

(5) Notify Tribal leaders each year by March 1 of the availability of residual information.

(b) BIA shall use the residual information determined under subparagraph (a) as the basis for negotiating with individual Tribes.

(c) In accordance with the appeals procedures in subpart R of this part, if BIA and a participating Tribe/Consortium disagree over the content of residual functions or amounts, Tribe/Consortium can appeal as shown in the following table.

| If a Tribe/Consortium . . . | the Tribe/Consortium may . . . | and . . . |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) Disagrees with BIA's determination | appeal to the Deputy Commissioner | the Deputy Commissioner must make a written determination within 30 days of receiving the request. |
| (2) Disagrees with the Deputy Commissioner's determination | appeal to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs | the Assistant Secretary's determination is final for the Department. |

(d) Information on residual functions may be amended if programs are added or deleted, if statutory or final judicial determinations mandate or if the Deputy Commissioner makes a determination that would alter the residual information or funding amounts. The decision may be appealed to the Assistant Secretary in accordance with subpart R of this part. The Assistant Secretary shall make a written determination within 30 days.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7307
ANTHONY T. STEWART, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-998-7) Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004 Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony T. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony T. Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Kansas forests**
 
2005 | 2010
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.80:F 76/K 13/
CGP systemNumber:000931292
 
March 14, 2018
§ 514.5 When must a gaming operation pay its annual fees? ( a ) Annual fees are payable to the Commission on a quarterly basis. The annual fee payable to the Commission optionally may be paid in full in the first quarterly payment.
( b ) Each gaming operation shall calculate the amount of fees to be paid, if any, and remit them with the quarterly statement required in § 514.6 within three (3) months, six (6) months, nine (9) months, and twelve (12) months of the end of the gaming operation's fiscal year.
#### Peter Prevenas, appellant, v. Catherine Prevenas, appellee.

227 N. W. 2d 29

Filed March 27, 1975.

No. 39856.

Qualley & Nelson and Thomas A. Vakulskas, for appellant.

Philip M. Bowen and Riedmann & Welsh, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Boslaugh, McCown, and Newton, JJ., and Stuart, District Judge.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for dissolution of a marriage. The petitioner, Peter Prevenas, has appealed from a judgment of the District Court awarding custody of the parties’ minor child to the appellee, together with child support in the amount of $150 per month and alimony consisting of a lump sum payment of $2,000, monthly payments of $200 for 11 months, and payments of $150 per month for the following 24-month period. Although the judgment of the District Court was not superseded, the appellant has failed to comply with that part of the judgment requiring monthly child support payments.

The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal. This court has previously held that an appeal may be dismissed for contumacious violation of an order of the District Court. An appellant who fails to comply with *400an order of the court is not in a position to seek judicial assistance. Kartman v. Cook, 189 Neb. 159, 201 N. W. 2d 705. Numerous other courts have reached a similar result when confronted with this problem. See, Annotation, 49 A. L. R. 2d 1425; Stewart v. Stewart, 91 Ariz. 356, 372 P. 2d 697; Hopp v. James, 470 S. W. 2d 716 (Tex. Civ. App.); Rude v. Rude, 153 Cal. App. 2d 243, 314 P. 2d 226.

Upon failure of the appellant to comply with the order of the trial court and make a proper showing of such compliance in this court within 20 days from the date this opinion is filed, the appeal shall stand dismissed.

Motion to dismiss conditionally sustained.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JASON S. REESE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-3259

[March 21, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 

19008538CF10A. 

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Successor Liability 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Successor liability

                  -  Opinion Letter 85-08
The described spin-off is a reportable event and sales transaction principles apply to the spin-off and transfer transactions.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-9
Asset purchaser assuming some pension plans not successor corporation to the seller with respect to plans left with the seller; purchaser is liable for plans it assumed; liability to PBGC is not limited by any agreement between seller and purchaser as to the amount of liability purchaser was willing to assume.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 86-09
Plans found not to be successor plans where there is a clear delineation of separate plans maintained by separate employers with the phase-in of guaranteed benefits beginning at the later of the adoption date or effective date of each plan.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 86-14
A plan was not a successor plan to another plan, because both plans existed during the same plan year.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 80-16
Discusses successor plan requirements.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 78-10
Whether an employer that purchased a division of another company and rehired its employees would be treated as a successor corporation and assume liability for existing plans.
-               document
#### Victor Luikert, Respondent, v. Rosalie Luikert and Others, Defendants. Emma Weill, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NED/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY ROY WALEAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71232

Agency No. A095-629-838

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Jerry Roy Walean, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

FILED

DEC 28 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NED/Research 2 07-71232

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4

(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Walean has shown changed

circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales,

479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

The record does not compel the conclusion that there is a clear probability

Walean would be persecuted on account of his westernization or United States

citizen children if he returned to Indonesia. See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 658. Even

if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29

(9th Cir. 2004) applies to Walean, a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, he has not

demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha, 319

F.3d at 1184-85; see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009). 

(“an applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger

quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”). Finally, the record also

does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of

Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009). 
NED/Research 3 07-71232

 Accordingly, Walean’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 48.115 How will the Bureau monitor the results achieved by the use of funds received from leases? The Head of the School for each Bureau-operated school that has active leases under this part must submit an annual report to the Director, the designee, and the Office of Facilities Management and Construction. The report must contain the following information: ( a ) A list of leases and the facilities covered by each lease;
( b ) An accounting of receipts from each lease;
( c ) An accounting of all expenditures and the supporting documentation showing that expenditures were made for school purposes;
( d ) A report of the benefits provided by the leasing program as a whole;
( e ) A certification that the terms of each lease were met or, if the terms of a lease were not met, the actions taken as a result of the noncompliance; and
( f ) Any unexpected expenses incurred.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of Funding Opportunity and Solicitation for Grant 
Application (SGA) for Green Jobs Innovation Fund

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).

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

    Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/DFA PY 10-07.

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the Department of Labor's Employment and 
Training Administration (ETA) announces the availability of 
approximately $40 million in grant funds authorized by the Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998, Title I, Subtitle D, Section 171(d), Public Law 
105-220 for the Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) to increase the 
number of individuals completing training programs who receive 
industry-recognized credentials and to increase the number of 
individuals completing training programs for employment in green jobs. 
ETA proposes to fund approximately five to eight grants to national and 
statewide organizations with local affiliates with existing career 
training programs to provide technical and basic skills training that 
lead to green job opportunities in at least six communities per grant 
with this SGA. With these grants, the Department is emphasizing 
critical steps along green career pathways by: (1) Forging linkages 
between Registered Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, and/
or (2) integrating the delivery of technical and basic skills training 
through community-based partnerships.
    The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments, in connection 
with Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Title I, Subtitle D, Section 
171(d), Public Law 105-220 for the Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) is 
described in further detail on ETA's Web site at http://www.doleta.gov 
or on http://www.grants.gov. The Web sites provide application 
information, eligibility requirements, review and selection procedures 
and other program requirements governing this solicitation.

DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications is March 29, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kia Mason, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2606.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of February, 2010.
Donna Kelly,
Grant Officer, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-4181 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P