alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022104EN.01000301.xml

| 4.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10595 – CERBERUS / HBCE (FRENCH RETAIL BANKING))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 104/03)

On 23 February 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10595. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10595. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6194

AARON HEADSPETH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOYCE K. CONLEY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-485-5)

Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: September 11, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Headspeth, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Headspeth appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Headspeth v. Conley, No. CA-99-485-5 (S.D.W.

Va. Jan. 4, 2001). 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.
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 24174.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, ■for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated. The penalty assessed is a fine of fifty dollars.

*170The record is before this, court without a statement of facts and bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular. The judgment is affirmed.
1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-1644

___________

James S. Murphy, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Dr. John Doe; Captain John Doe; * Appeal from the United States

Dean Minor; Jim Moore; Lt. R.W. * District Court for the

Martin; Jim Jones; Larry Barne; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Ms. Unknown Rusker; W. Buck; *

Jerry Hudson; John Doe; M. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jones; R.S. Shoun; Thereasa *

Thornbrug, all individually and *

in their official capacities, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 26, 1996

 Filed: February 15, 1996 ___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, AND MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate James S. Murphy appeals the district court's1

adverse orders in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, denying his motions

for appointment of counsel and for recusal, dismissing as to some

defendants, and granting summary judgment as to the remaining

defendants. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the

parties' briefs, we conclude no error of law or fact appears.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2785 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2785

To suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of Brazil until such time 
 as Brazil amends its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of 
                nationals of Brazil to other countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2015

 Mr. Ryan of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Johnson of Ohio) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of Brazil until such time 
 as Brazil amends its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of 
                nationals of Brazil to other countries.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``End Immuity for Brazilian Criminals 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF VISAS FOR BRAZILIANS UNTIL BRAZIL AMENDS ITS LAWS 
              TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON EXTRADITION OF NATIONALS OF 
              BRAZIL TO OTHER COUNTRIES.

    (a) Suspension of Visa Issuance.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa may be issued to a 
citizen, subject, national, or resident of Brazil until the President 
of the United States determines and certifies to the Congress that the 
Government of Brazil has amended its laws to remove the prohibition on 
extradition of nationals of Brazil to other countries.
    (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of subsection 
(a) on a case-by-case basis if the President determines and certifies 
to the Congress that it is in the national interests of the United 
States to do so.
    (c) Effect of Unauthorized Issuance.--Any visa issued in violation 
of this subsection shall be null and void.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HECTOR GOMEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00006

- CR

Appeal from the

34 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso C ounty , Texas

(TC# 20130D02254 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until

November 26

, 2014

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

S TATE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza , the State ’s Attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before N ovember 26 , 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 6 th day of October , 2014

.

PER CURIAM
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-21036

Summary Calendar

 

HAROLD OGDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(H-94-CV-3987)

 

August 14, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Harold Ogden appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for Arrow Automotive Industries Incorporated.

Ogden argues that there were genuine issues of material fact

precluding summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs and affirm the district court’s judgment for essentially the
1Ogden’s brief falsely states that the record shows Arrow

represented to TEC that Ogden was let go due to a reduction in

force. However, the most the record suggests is that TEC made a

determination (which was subject to appeal; whether or not it was

appealed is not reflected) that Ogden was let go in a reduction in

force; there is no evidence whether Arrow took a position before

TEC, much less what that position was. Counsel is cautioned not to

misstate the record.

2

same reasons set forth by the district court.1

Ogden also appeals from the district court’s denial of his

postjudgment motion to set aside the summary judgment or

alternatively for a new trial; the motion was served and filed well

past the Rule 59 deadline. Ogden failed to file a separate notice

of appeal from the district court’s denial of this motion.

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider this issue.

Williams v. Chater, F.3d , (5th Cir. June 26, 1996, No.

94-20924) 1996 WL 361223 at *2.

AFFIRMED
() 

() 

() 

() 

\sg Biotoxtech 

FINAL REPORT 

Biotoxtech Co., Ltd. 

Ochang Scientific Industrial Complex, 686-2 Y angcheong-ri, 

Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-883, Korea 

- 1/52-
0 

0 

() 

() 

0 

() 

() 

() 

- 2/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 3/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-4/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 5/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 6/52-
0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 7/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 8/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 9/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 10/52-
0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 11/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 12/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 13/52-
0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 14/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 15/52-
() 

0 

() 

() 

() 

() 

() 

() 

- 16/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-17/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 18/52-
0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 19/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 20/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 21/52-
0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 22/52-
() 

() 

() 

() 

() 

0 

() 

() 

() 

0 

- 23/52-
0 

() 

() 

() 

0 

0 

() 

0 

() 

0 

- 24/52-
0 

0 

() 

TABLES 

0 

0 

() 

0 

() 

0 

- 25/52-
0 

() 

() 

() 

- 26/52-
0 

() 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 27/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 28/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

- 29/52-
0 

0 

0 

APPENDICES 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 30/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Appendix I. Protocol 

·.,g Biotoxtech 

PROTOCOL 

Biotoxtech Co., Ltd. 

Ochang Scientific Industrial Complex, 686-2 Yangcheong-ri, 

Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-883, Korea 

- IllS-

-31/52-
0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 2118-

0 

- 32/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 3/18-

0 

- 33/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-4/18-

0 

- 34/52-
0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 35/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

-6/18-

0 

- 36/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

- 37/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 8/18-

0 

- 38/52-
0 

() 

0 

() 

0 

0 

() 

- 9/18-

0 

- 39/52-
0 

() 

() 

() 

() 

() 

- 10/18-

0 

- 40/52-
() 

() 

() 

0 

() 

() 

() 

- 11118-

() 

-41/52-
0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 42/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-43/52-
0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-14/18-

0 

-44/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-15/18-

0 

- 45/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-16/18-

0 

- 46/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

~17/18-

0 

-47/52-
() 

0 

0 

() 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 - 18/18-

0 

- 48/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 49/52-
0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

-50/52-
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-51/52-
0 

() 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

- 52152-
# C_2022427EN.01003201.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/32

---

EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2021

(2022/C 427/32)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/250290/ERCEA_Annual%20Accounts%202021.pdf

---
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1234

In re: DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition . ( 1:11

- cr - 00302

- CCB

- 3; 1:15

- cv - 01965

- CCB )

Submitted : May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Daren Kareem Gadsden, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daren Kareem Gadsden, who was convicted of several bank fraud and identity theft offenses , has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with this court. In his pe t ition, Gadsden asks that this court dismiss the criminal indictment against him b ecause he
asserts that the Government ’s evidence was insufficient to support his bank fraud convictions and, thus , the district court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. Gadsden nonetheless readily admits that he has unsuccessfully raised this claim in
“se veral forms” before this c ourt and in the district court.

“ [A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and indisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Vargas , 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). In fact, a writ of prohibition should not issue unless it “clearly appears that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction.” Smith v. Whitney , 116 U.S. 167, 176 (1886). Because it is a drastic remedy, a writ of prohibition should only be granted when the petitioner’ s right to the requested relief is clear and indisputable, see Vargas , 723 F.2d at 1468; see also In re Missouri , 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981), and there are no other adequate means of relief, In re Bankers
Trust Co. , 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985). Gadsden has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of prohibition . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITI ON DENIED
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the quarter ended June 30,
2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ Weston M. AndressWeston M. AndressAugust 9, 2006
    
    President and Chief Financial Officer of
Colonial Properties Trust, the general partner of
Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
# C_2023291EN.01001001.xml

| 18.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/10

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.108694

(2023/C 291/09)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 3.8.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.108694 |
| Member State | France |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Dispositif exceptionnel de prise en charge des pertes économiques des filières agricoles spécialisées dans la production biologique |
| Legal basis | Projet de décision de la directrice générale de FranceAgriMer FranceAgriMer relative aux modalités de mise en œuvre du dispositif exceptionnel de prise en charge des pertes économiques des filières agricoles spécialisées dans la production biologique engendrées par les conséquences de l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 60 000 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Growing of non-perennial crops, Growing of perennial crops, Plant propagation, Animal production, Mixed farming |
| Name and address of the granting authority | FranceAgriMer |
| 12, rue Henri Rol-Tanguy 93100 MONTREUIL |

Date of adoption of the decision

3.8.2023

Aid number

SA.108694

Member State

France

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Dispositif exceptionnel de prise en charge des pertes économiques des filières agricoles spécialisées dans la production biologique

Legal basis

Projet de décision de la directrice générale de FranceAgriMer FranceAgriMer relative aux modalités de mise en œuvre du dispositif exceptionnel de prise en charge des pertes économiques des filières agricoles spécialisées dans la production biologique engendrées par les conséquences de l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 60 000 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Growing of non-perennial crops, Growing of perennial crops, Plant propagation, Animal production, Mixed farming

Name and address of the granting authority

FranceAgriMer

12, rue Henri Rol-Tanguy 93100 MONTREUIL

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA

---
# C_2022183EN.01000201.xml

| 5.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/2

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 183/02)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Le Puy-en-Velay - Paris (Orly) |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 1995 |
| Date of entry into force of modifications | 14 January 2023 |
| Address where the text and any information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | Order of 22 March 2022 imposing the public service obligation on scheduled air services between le Puy-en-Velay (Loudes) and Paris (Orly)
  NOR : TRAA2201947A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information please contact:
  Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile





  DTA/SDS1 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75 720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tél. +33 158094321 |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Le Puy-en-Velay - Paris (Orly)

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations

1995

Date of entry into force of modifications

14 January 2023

Address where the text and any information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

Order of 22 March 2022 imposing the public service obligation on scheduled air services between le Puy-en-Velay (Loudes) and Paris (Orly)

NOR : TRAA2201947A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information please contact:

Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile

DTA/SDS1

50 rue Henry Farman

75 720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tél. +33 158094321

---
Appeal dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 9, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00002-CR

JUAN JAVIER VILLAFUERTE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2381872

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction signed September 28, 2022. 

Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal 

was due by December 27, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2).

A court of appeals may grant an extension of time if, within 15 days after the 

deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files (a) the notice of appeal in the 

trial court and (b) a motion to extend time in the court of appeals. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.3; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(2) (governing motion to extend time to file 
2

notice of appeal). The fifteenth day after December 27, 2022, was January 11, 2023. 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 28, 2022, a date within 15 days of 

the due date. Appellant, however, did not file a motion to extend time to file the 

notice of appeal.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (discussing former 1986 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b)). When a notice of appeal, but no motion 

to extend time, is filed within the 15-day period, the court of appeals can take no 

action other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

On January 27, 2023, the parties were notified that the appeal was subject to 

dismissal without further notice unless either party demonstrated that the court has 

jurisdiction. No response has been received.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).