alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013208EN.01000102.xml

| 23.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6937 — UTC/TCC/TCAC JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 208/02

On 17 July 2013, 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:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6937. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6937. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANS BUNYAMIN,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72036 Agency No. A095

- 025

- 053

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 1 4, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges

. Frans Bunyamin, 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 withholding of removal

.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72036

the agency’s factual findings

. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Bunyamin claim s he suffered past persecution and established a clear
probability of future persecution based on his membership in a disfavored group of

Chinese Christians in Indonesia. Subst antial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that Bunyamin’s past mistreatment, including discrimination,
harassment, being robbed while in school, and having stones thrown at his home in
a threatening manner, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v.

Holder , 590 F.3d 971, 975

- 76 (9th Cir. 2009) (no showing of past persecution
where Chinese Christian was harassed, threatened, discriminated against,
wrongfully arrested, and beaten by a mob in Indonesia).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, under a
disfavored group analysis, Bunyamin failed to establish sufficient individualized

risk to show it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted in Indonesia.

See id . at 978

- 80 ; see also Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“[a]n application for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably
larger quantum of individualized

- risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum3 14

- 72036

applicant”) . Thus, Bunyamin’s withholding of removal clai m fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

FREDDIE CLEVELAND,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 81 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 Trident Rowan Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark S. Hauser, Joint 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, as amended; 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: May 25, 2004
                                                       /s/ Mark S. Hauser
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Mark S. Hauser


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.
#### William RANEY, d/b/a Krone Avenue Nursery, Appellant, v. JIMMIE DIESEL CORP. et al., Appellees.

No. 77-1865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1978.

Richard M. White, Miami, for appellant.

Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers and David H. Burstyn, Gilbride & Heller and Lawrence R. Heller, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an order titled order on all pending motions to dismiss dated July 25, 1977, entered by the trial court pursuant to ap-pellees’, defendants below, motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The order dismissed with prejudice Counts o I, II, IV, and V of appellant’s amended complaint. We reverse.

Counts I and II of the amended complaint attempted to state a cause of action against appellee Jimmie Diesel Corporation for breach of contract and negligence, respectively. Counts IV and V of the amended complaint attempted to state a cause of action against appellee Miller Bearings of Orlando, Inc., for breach of contract and negligence, respectively. Both appellees filed motions to dismiss appellant’s amended complaint. Except as to Count III of the amended complaint which sought specific performance, the trial court entered the order appealed dismissing with prejudice the amended complaint.

*998Basically, the function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action. A court is not permitted to speculate as to whether a plaintiff will be able to prove the allegations, rather a court is required to accept all well pleaded allegations contained in the complaint as .true. See, e. g., *Pizzie v. Central Bank and Trust Co.,*250 So.2d 895 (Fla.1971); *Connolly v. Sebeco,*89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956); and *Johnson v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.,*169 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are set forth, e. g., in *Cook*v. *Underwriters National Assurance Co.,*221 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); the elements for a cause of action for negligence are set forth, e. g., in *Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Carson,*327 So.2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Applying the principles set forth above, in the light of the requisite elements of causes of action for breach of contract and for negligence, contrary to the trial court’s determination, we are of the opinion that appellant’s amended complaint in Counts I and IV set forth causes of action for breach of contract and in Counts II and V causes of action for negligence against appellees. Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This opinion should not, in any way, he considered in passing upon the ability of appellant to prove or fail to prove the allegations set forth in his amended complaint.

In view of our opinion expressed above, it is unnecessary to consider the other points raised by appellant on appeal.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Carol T. TSAVARIS, Appellant, v. Louis J. TSAVARIS, Appellee.

No. 73-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 24, 1973.

Frank Ragano, Tampa, for appellant.

Charles F. Clark and Ted R. Manry, III, Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Louis and Carol Tsavaris were divorced in 1971. By agreement, Louis was to pay Carol $1425 monthly alimony and $500 monthly in child support. In 1972 Louis Tsavaris filed a motion for modification of the final judgment alleging that there had been a change in his financial ability and requesting a decrease in alimony payments. He then filed numerous interrogatories requesting Carol Tsavaris to answer them. She objected to the answering of some six of the interrogatories, specifically Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The trial judge overruled her objections and she has interlocu-torily appealed.

Fla.Stat. § 61.14, F.S.A., permits either party to apply to the circuit court *594for a modification of the terms of the final judgment where the circumstances or financial ability of either party have changed. Therefore, Louis may file interrogatories relevant to such changes even though he may be relying upon changes in Carol’s circumstances or financial ability rather than his own. However, interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 appear to us to be totally irrelevant and amount to a “fishing expedition” on the part of the petitioner. The trial judge erred in failing to sustain the objections at least as to these two interrogatories.

We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for action consistent with this opinion.

LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

MANN, C. J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,454
<SECURITIES>                                   113,283
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         727,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,614,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        624,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    139,000
<COMMON>                                           246
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,409,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,614,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               367,704
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                174,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            106,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,154
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28<F1>
<FN>

<F1> We have calculated earnings per share amounts in accordance with FAS 128
     "Earnings Per Share". We have entered basic and diluted amounts in place
      of primary and fully diluted, respectively.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                                March 28, 1997




Dominion Resources Black Warrior Trust
NationsBank Center
901 Main Street, 12th Floor
Dallas, Texas  75202


Gentlemen:


        In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10K for the
year ended December 31, 1996 for Dominion Resources Black Warrior Trust (the
"Trust"), we delivered a report dated March 14, 1997 with respect to an estimate
of the net proved reserves, future production, and income attributable to
certain royalty interests of the Trust as of January 1, 1997.

        We understand that you intend that our report be included in the Annual
Report and any amendments thereto, and we hereby consent to such use.  We also
consent to the references in the Annual Report to our firm and to the
information provided therein.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ Ryder Scott Company
                                            Petroleum Engineers

                                        RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                        PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

LPC/sw
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 14795-002]

Environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will participate in a meeting, via telephone, with representatives of Shell Energy North America, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue the on-going discussion of potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed Hydro Battery Pearl Hill Pumped Storage Project. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:

Executive Conference Room at the Executive Conference Center at the Spokane International Airport, 9000 W. Airport Drive, Spokane, Washington 99224, (located adjacent to the lower level baggage claim and parking areas), August 30, 2018, 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. PST, Call-in lines will be available.

Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding may attend and observe this meeting, in person or via telephone. If tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into the Commission's administrative record.

                    If you plan to attend this meeting, in person or via telephone, please contact Brent Hicks of HRA Associates (contractor for Shell Energy) at (206) 343-0226 or                     *bhicks@hrassoc.com*.                

Dated: August 14, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-18005 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2014238EN.01000401.xml

| 23.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/4

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

2014/C 238/03

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP (1), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 (2), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012. The grounds for designation of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IIa to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 March 2015, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

before 31 March 2015

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 49.

1

(2)  OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 10.

2

---
H. R. 3321

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To provide increased flexibility to States in carrying out the Low-Income Home

Energy Assistance Program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASED STATE FLEXIBILITY IN THE LOW-INCOME

HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Section 927 of the Housing and Community Development Act

of 1992 (Public Law 102–550) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking the parenthetical phrase; and

(B) by inserting before the period ‘‘, except as provided

in subsection (d)’’;

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) by striking ‘‘such’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘or receiving energy’’; and

(B) by inserting before the period ‘‘for any program

in which eligibility or benefits are based on need, except

as provided in subsection (d)’’; and

(3) by inserting at the end thereof the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM.—For purposes of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, tenants described in subsection (a)(2) who are

responsible for paying some or all heating or cooling costs shall

not have their eligibility automatically denied. A State may consider

the amount of the heating or cooling component of utility allowances

received by tenants described in subsection (a)(2) when setting

benefit levels under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The size of any reduction in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program benefits must be reasonably related to the amount

of the heating or cooling component of the utility allowance received

and must ensure that the highest level of assistance will be furnished to those households with the lowest incomes and the highest

energy costs in relation to income, taking into account family size,

19:08 Nov 30, 1993 VerDate 16-NOV-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\H3321.ENR bend06
H. R. 3321—2

in compliance with section 2605(b)(5) of the Low-Income Home

Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(5)).’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

19:08 Nov 30, 1993 VerDate 16-NOV-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\H3321.ENR bend06