alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD STEVEN MITUNIEWICZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARK,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5383 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

[Dkt. #14].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order Adopting Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #12]

and Judgment [Dkt. #13] in favor of defendant. Plaintiff was ordered by the Magistrate Judge to amend his

complaint [Dkt. #8]. When he failed to do so, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal [Dkt. #9].

Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #10]. In the objection, he raised as one issue

amongst many that he was never served with the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Amend his complaint [Dkt. #8].

He raises this same issue in his motion for reconsideration. 

This Court is skeptical of his claim that he did not receive the Order to Amend his complaint given that

it was sent to the same address as the Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal [Dkt. #9] and

plaintiff obviously received that document because he filed objections thereto [Dkt. #10]. However, the Court

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL-JKA Document 17 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 2

Mituniewicz v. Clark Doc. 17

Dockets.Justia.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

will grant plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and direct the Clerk to send this Order and a copy of

Magistrate Judge Arnold’s Order [Dkt. #8] directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint to Mr. Mituniewicz.

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint as directed by Magistrate Judge Arnold on or before January

12, 2007. The failure to file an amended complaint which conforms with Magistrate Judge Arnold’s

Order [Dkt. #8] will result in the dismissal of this case. It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #14] is GRANTED. The Clerk shall

reopen this matter. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Demand [sic] Access to this Court” [Dkt. #16] is non-sensical and is

DENIED. 

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se, and shall re-refer this matter to Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold for further proceedings. 

Dated this 14th day of December, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL-JKA Document 17 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TAL International Group, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Brian M. Sondey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                      
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

| |     |                                                                                                                                                     
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 7, 2008

/s/ Brian M. Sondey
Brian M. Sondey
President and Chief Executive Officer


---
**1995-  peanut_stocks_and_processing_01.26.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_02.28.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_03.28.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_04.28.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_05.26.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_05.26.95_errata_05.30.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_06.28.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_07.27.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_08.25.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_09.27.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_10.27.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_11.29.95peanut_stocks_and_processing_12.27.95

**
#### Anthony WASHINGTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Rufus FLEMING, Regional Director; J. Halsey Harris, Regional Obudsman; Eddie L. Pearson, Chief Warden; David B. Everett, Assistant Warden of Operation and Security; Jamilla F. Burney, Assistant Warden of Housing and Programs; Rick E. White, Senior Counselor; Michael Shawn Edwards, Chaplin; Rufus C. Robinson, Unit Manager; L. Murphy, Grievance Coordinator; Sergeant Parham, Correctional Officer; Mr. Appel, Registered Nurse; Lieutenant Hamlette; John Doe, IV; Officer Kelly; Sergeant Tischler, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-6538.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.

Anthony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, Rawls & NcNelis, PC, Richmond, Virginia; William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Philip Carlton Hollowell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*228Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Washington v. Fleming,*No. CA-02-778-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 17, 2005 & entered Mar. 21, 2005). We deny Washington’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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*
```

[106th Congress Public Law 478]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ478.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 2183]]

Public Law 106-478
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
      To designate the United States <<NOTE: Nov. 9, 2000 -  [H.R. 
5302]>> courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue in Seattle, Washington, 
       as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue in 
Seattle, Washington, shall be known and designated as the ``William 
Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United 
States Courthouse''.

    Approved November 9, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5302:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 17, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 1, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  F.224 Mutual Fund Shares  
 Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates Description
Series code
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2015   Q2
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
LineMutual funds; mutual fund shares; liability
	FA653164205
	395.9
	200.7
	386.2
	346.0
	309.4
	95.3
	224.7
	-35.8
	-60.4
	-22.7
	76.2
	1Mutual funds; mutual fund shares; liability
	FA653164205
	395.9
	200.7
	386.2
	346.0
	309.4
	95.3
	224.7
	-35.8
	-60.4
	-22.7
	76.2
	2Households and nonprofit organizations; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA153064205
	212.7
	149.0
	302.4
	230.4
	241.3
	73.1
	62.6
	167.4
	14.3
	-192.0
	118.0
	3Nonfinancial corporate business; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA103064203
	11.1
	-12.8
	-1.7
	1.2
	15.1
	7.4
	7.4
	7.4
	7.4
	7.4
	7.4
	4State and local governments, excluding employee retirement funds; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA213064203
	3.0
	-0.1
	0.8
	-0.5
	1.3
	2.6
	0.5
	3.3
	3.3
	1.1
	2.1
	5U.S.-chartered depository institutions; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA763064203
	-5.8
	-0.8
	-1.1
	1.6
	-0.7
	-0.9
	3.8
	-3.3
	-1.6
	4.1
	-0.5
	6Credit unions; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA473064205
	0.0
	0.4
	0.2
	-0.5
	-0.2
	-0.1
	0.6
	0.5
	-1.0
	0.1
	0.1
	7Property-casualty insurance companies; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA513064203
	-0.1
	-0.7
	1.8
	1.0
	1.4
	1.0
	1.0
	1.0
	1.0
	1.0
	-1.2
	8Life insurance companies; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA543064205
	63.2
	11.0
	2.3
	-19.1
	-33.4
	-29.1
	-32.5
	-37.8
	-19.2
	-44.9
	-49.5
	9Private pension funds; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA573064205
	55.4
	52.2
	23.6
	123.9
	40.6
	34.2
	75.9
	-49.7
	39.9
	142.5
	9.0
	10State and local government employee retirement funds; mutual fund shares; asset
	FA223064205
	1.2
	-68.0
	-21.5
	24.4
	11.3
	15.7
	29.9
	-20.6
	3.7
	8.2
	23.4
	11Rest of the world; U.S. mutual fund shares; asset
	FA263064203
	55.2
	70.7
	79.5
	-16.4
	32.7
	-8.5
	75.6
	-103.9
	-108.2
	49.8
	-32.6
	12 Back to top
  **NOTES** Shares of open-end investment companies; excludes shares of money market mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.
  Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
Before the Second Division,

June 22, 1949

No. 53317.

protests 112158-K, etc. (New York).

#### Colonial Bead Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WAIVE

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TO EXTEND SPEEDY

INDICTMENT DEADLINE - 1

HORWITZ & STAMM, PLLC

119 First Ave. S., Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 264-8585

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THOMAS MICHAEL CARVER,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 06-247 MJB

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

WAIVE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND

TO EXTEND SPEEDY INDICTMENT

DEADLINE

Based on the representations of counsel made in Defendant’s Motion to Waive

Preliminary Hearing and for Waiver of Speedy Indictment, as well as on Mr. Carver’s

signed Waiver of Preliminary Hearing and Waiver of Speedy Indictment, NOW

THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the preliminary hearing in this matter is

stricken and the new deadline by which this case must be indicted is on or before August 7,

2006.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-mj-00247-MJB Document 15 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WAIVE

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TO EXTEND SPEEDY

INDICTMENT DEADLINE - 2

HORWITZ & STAMM, PLLC

119 First Ave. S., Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 264-8585

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of June, 2006.

HORWITZ & STAMM PLLC

____________________________

Attorney for Thomas M. Carver

HORWITZ & STAMM PLLC

119 First Ave. S., Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 264-8585

Fax: (206) 682-3002

E-mail: jennifer@seattlecriminalattorney.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that today I

electronically filed this pleading and all attachments with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system,

which will send electronic notification of the filing to the attorneys of record for each of the parties. 

Signed by Jennifer Horwitz on June 7, 2006 in Seattle, Washington.

Case 2:06-mj-00247-MJB Document 15 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Execute Sports, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Geno
      M.
      Apicella, Principle Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





1.
      the
      Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Execute
      Sports, Inc..





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




Date:
              April 13, 2007
            
            /s/
              Geno
              M. ApicellaGeno
                M. ApicellaPrinciple
                Accounting Officer
Aurora Gold Corporation
                        Suite 1505 - 1060 Alberni Street,
                          Vancouver, B.C. Canada E 4K2

                            Telephone: (604) 687-4432
                            Facsimile: (604) 687-4709




October 1, 1999


Patagonia Gold Corporation
Suite 1505- 1060 Alberni Street,
Vancouver, B.C. Canada
V6E 4K2


Attention: David Jenkins,


Dear Sirs:


Re:  Aurora Gold Corporation (the "Company")
     Letter of Intent: San Diego Exploration Reconnaissance Concession Joint
     Venture Guatemala, Central America


This  letter  is  intended  to  document  our  mutual  understanding  prior to a
commitment of funds from Patagonia Gold Corporation and/or associated  companies
for the acquisition of the San Diego mineral exploration  reconnaissance licence
and  the  exploration  of  the  San  Diego  mineral  exploration  reconnaissance
concession, Guatemala Central America.

Aurora  Gold  Corporation  has been  awarded  exclusive  title to the San  Diego
mineral exploration  reconnaissance licence by the government of Guatemala.  The
mineral  exploration  reconnaissance  license  confers  on the  titleholder  the
exclusive rights to identify and locate possible areas for  exploration,  within
the  licenses  territorial  limits and to unlimited  depth in the  subsoil.  The
license was awarded to Aurora Gold Corporation in September 1999.

Patagonia Gold Corporation  and/or associated  companies shall have the right to
earn a fifty  percent  (50%)  interest  in the  San  Diego  mineral  exploration
reconnaissance licence upon payment of the following amounts:

1.   The  payment  of USD Nine  Thousand  Two  Hundred  and  Fifty  (USD  9,250)
     Guatemala  government  fee for the  acquisition  of the San  Diego  mineral
     exploration reconnaissance license and

                                       1

<PAGE>

2.   The payment of USD Eighteen  Thousand Six Hundred Seventeen and 25/100 (USD
     18,617.25)  for a Phase  1  exploration  program  to be  conducted  between
     November  1, 1999 and March 31, 2000 on the San Diego  mineral  exploration
     reconnaissance  concession.  The work program  shall  consist of geological
     reconnaissance, sampling of rock outcrops and stream sediment sampling.



Yours truly,

Aurora Gold Corporation





/s/ Cameron Richardson                                          October 1, 1999
----------------------------------
Cameron Richardson
Controller and Corporate Secretary
(Authorized Representative)




Acceptance of these terms by Patagonia Gold Corporation



For and on behalf of Patagonia Gold Corporation




/s/ David Jenkins                                               October 1, 1999
----------------------------------
David Jenkins
President
Patagonia Gold Corporation
(Authorized Representative)


                                       2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TERRY RICHARD MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C06-891-RSL-JPD

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE RESPONSE

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file

a response to respondent’s answer to petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. Dkt. No. 12. 

Petitioner argues that a ninety-day extension of time is necessary “in order to procure the

balance of record including but not limited to the sentencing transcripts and co-defendant’s

David Jonas Smith[’s] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,” and to prepare a proper response to

respondent’s answer. Id. Petitioner further notes that this request stems from his current

recovery from cancer radiation treatment. Id. Respondent does not oppose petitioner’s

motion. After careful consideration of the motion, supporting materials, governing law and

the balance of the record, the Court orders as follows:

(1) Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a response (Dkt. No. 12) is

GRANTED. Petitioner has shown that additional time is necessary under the circumstances. 

Furthermore, while the government has not asserted prejudice stemming from the lack of

Case 2:06-cv-00891-RAJ-JPD Document 13 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE - 2

notice of petitioner’s motion, and the Court finds no such prejudice, the Court does remind

petitioner that copies of such motions must be sent to the opposing party under the Local

Rules of this district. That said, the Court finds that a ninety-day extension of time is

reasonable. Accordingly, petitioner shall have until January 2, 2007 to file his response. 

The respondent shall have until January 8, 2007 to file an optional reply thereto. As a result,

petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is re-noted for January 9, 2007.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties and to the

Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge.

DATED this 27th day of September, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00891-RAJ-JPD Document 13 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL MIER-NAVA,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5351 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw

Waiver of Right to Speedy Trial [Dkt. #116].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, and having considered that the waiver

[Dkt. #112] was filed in error, it is hereby: 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Court will deem that Miguel Mier-Nava did not

consent to a continuance in this matter and did not waive his rights to a speedy trial.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party

appearing pro se.

Dated this 17th day of July, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-05351-RBL Document 120 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1
Media General, Inc., 333 E. Franklin St. Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 887-5000 www.mediageneral.com 

Phone (804) 887-5049 

hgola@mediageneral.com 

 

September 28, 2015 

BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION 

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 12748, Media General Inc. 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2531 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On September 3, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption No. 12748 to Media General, Inc. (“MEG”), allowing 

commercial operations of the DJI Inspire I aircraft under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012. MEG hereby seeks to amend the Exemption to allow it to operate additional UAS 

models -- the (1) DJI Phantom 3, (2) DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and (3) 3D Robotics Solo (together, the 

“Amendment Aircraft”) – under the same conditions as approved in Exemption No. 12748. 

Addition of the Amendment Aircraft does not affect the basis upon which the FAA granted its approval in 

Exemption No. 12748 and supports the request for amended exemption. These aircraft are comparable in 

type, size, weight, speed and operating capabilities to those of the DJI Inspire 1 currently authorized by 

Exemption No. 12748. To the extent necessary, MEG refers the FAA to its original exemption request 

submitted in Docket FAA-2015-2531 for a listing of regulations (as amended by Exemption 12748) for 

which a waiver is being sought; a demonstration of the public interest; and a showing of an equivalent 

level of safety. 

The Amendment Aircraft would be operated in compliance with the existing requirements of Exemption 

No. 12748, the Blanket FAA COA issued July 2015, the Media General, Inc. Flight Operations Manual 

and the Media General, Inc. motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM). Because the 

requested amendment would not set any precedent or otherwise raise any new issues, we request the FAA 

to issue a summary grant based on preceding exemptions. 

Thank you for your attention to this petition. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do 

not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Henry Gola 

Associate General Counsel 

Media General, Inc.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4227 — Umicore/Solvay/Solvicore/JV)

(2006/C 155/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----