alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022367EN.01000201.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10871 – E.ON / FSI / WESTENERGIE BREITBAND)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 367/02)

On 7 September 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 32022M10871. 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 32022M10871. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 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 Quarterly Report of Gurata Gold, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shaun P. Davis,
President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of
Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.






/s/
Shaun P. Davis


Shaun P.
Davis


Chief
Executive Officer




January
13, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7390

GERARDO MARTINEZ; VINCENT T. MARTINEZ,

Petitioners - Appellants,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA JUSTICE COMMITTEE;

MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-3739-6)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerardo Martinez, Vincent T. Martinez, Appellants Pro Se. Donald

John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on their petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 1997). 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Martinez v. State of South Carolina Justice Comm., No. CA96-3739-6 (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 1997). 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
| **Derivatives - Schedule of Changes in Fair Value of Derivative Assets and Liabilities (Detail) (USD $)In Thousands, unless otherwise specified** | 3 Months Ended |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities Disclosure [Abstract]**                                                                           |           |   |
| Increase in other income                                                                                                                          | $ 989          | $ 606 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Change in the fair value of derivative assets and derivative liabilities attributable to credit risk included in other income.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fcf_ChangeInOtherIncomeDueToCreditRiskOnInterestRateSwaps**Namespace Prefix:**fcf_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_DerivativeInstrumentsAndHedgingActivitiesDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALVIN GREGORY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00316-BO-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Gregory appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First 

Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and his 

subsequent motion for reconsideration. We review the denial of a motion for 

compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 

(4th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court assumed without deciding that Gregory exhausted 

his administrative remedies and that he stated extraordinary and compelling circumstances 

warranting release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the 

motions, however, after analyzing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determining that 

relief was not warranted under the circumstances in Gregory’s case. 

Upon review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Gregory’s motion for compassionate release based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) 

factors. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In-Person Attendees: The Package Terminal Air Conditioning and Package Terminal Heat Pumps Standards Meeting

Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Email

Armstrong, Ashley General Engineer U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW

Washington DC 20585-0121 202-586-6590 202-586-4617 Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov

Bonner, Steve Director, Government 

Relations

Texas Instruments Incorporated 1455 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW, Suite 375

Washington DC 20004 202-220-9472 202-220-9480 s-bonner@ti.com

Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 410-719-0580 410-719-0581 publicsolutions@earthlink.net

Brundage. P.E., Donald 

M.

Principal Engineer 

Marketing Research

Southern Company Services, Inc. Bin 10206 241 Ralph 

McGill Boulevard NE

Atlanta GA 30308 404-506-4667 404-506-3180 dmbrunda@southernco.com

Butler, Sarah GC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cymbalsky, John Supervisory Operations 

Research Analyst

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW

Washington DC 20585 202-287-1692 202-586-4617 john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov

Decker, J. Ringo N/A Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street, Suite 

400

Burlington MA 01803 781-270-8410 781-270-0418 decker.ringo@navigant.com

Hunt, Marshall Senior Product Manager Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E)

PO Box 770000 San 

Francisco

CA 94177 415-260-7624 N/A mbh9@pge.com

Lau, Christopher Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street, NW, 

Suite 700

Washington DC 20036 202-481-7524 202-973-2401 christopher.lau@navigant.com

Lewis, Jessica N/A Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street NW, Suite 

700

Washington DC 20036 202-973-6585 202-973-2401 jessica,lewis@navigant.com

Petrillo-Groh, Laura G. Senior Certification 

Engineer

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

2111 Wilson Boulevard, 

Suite 500

Arlington VA 22201-3001 703-600-0335 703-552-1942 lpetrillo-groh@ahrinet.org

Rosenstock, Steven P.E. 

J.

Senior Manager, Energy 

Solutions

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W.

Washington DC 20004-2696 202-508-5465 202-508-5038 srosenstock@eei.org

Westphalen, Detlef Associate Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street

Suite 400

Burlington MA 01803-5154 781-270-8360 781-270-0418 detlef.westphalen@navigant.com

Williams, Alison Senior Research 

Associate

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL)

One Cyclotron Road,

Mailstop: 90-4000, Bldg 90, 

Room 2113

Berkeley CA 94720 510-495-2548 510-486-6996 aawilliams@lbl.gov

Williams, Yoolanda Program Manager - 

Regulatory and 

Compliance

General Electric - Appliances & 

Lighting

AP2-121, Appliance Park Louisville KY 40225 502-452-4802 502-452-0961 yoolanda.williams@ge.com

Yu, Bingyi Program Manager Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL)

One Cyclotron Road, Mail 

Stop: 40-4000, Building 

90G, Room 0115

Berkeley CA 94720 510-486-7287 510-486-5484 BYu@lbl.gov
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James Fitzsimons, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Petrocorp Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.   I am responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on my mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

Date:August 10, 2009

                                                                                     /s/ James Fitzsimons

 James Fitzsimons, President
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00377

- CR

Juan Columbus Miles, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1249446D )

July 9 , 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECO ND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Elko Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matt Wayrynen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of July, 2007.


/s/ Matt Wayrynen
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DREW DUDLEY JOHN FISHER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30203 

D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00027-SPW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Drew Dudley John Fisher appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 

for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(a). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-30203 

Fisher contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the district court placed too much weight on the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, and too little weight on his dysfunctional upbringing

and mental health and substance abuse issues. The district court did not abuse its 

discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record reflects 

that the court considered Fisher’s mitigating arguments – including his young age, 

difficult upbringing, and substance abuse issues – as well as the aggravating 

circumstances of his history and the nature of his offense before determining that 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors warranted an above-Guidelines 

sentence. The sentence is also substantively reasonable in light of the section 

3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see 

also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The 

weight to be given the various [section 3553(a)] factors in a particular case is for 

the discretion of the district court.”) 

AFFIRMED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3082 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

5919 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Daryle 

Holloway Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2015 

Mr. RICHMOND (for himself, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. 

BOUSTANY, Mr. ABRAHAM, and Mr. FLEMING) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5919 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, as the ‘‘Daryle Holloway Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DARYLE HOLLOWAY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 5919 Chef Menteur Highway in 

6 New Orleans, Louisiana, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Daryle Holloway Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3082 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Daryle Holloway Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
KENNETH EDWARD

BUNKLEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4058

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed February 19, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Kelvin C. Wells , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### BEIL et al. v. LEBO.

No. 9569.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

July 25, 1934.

Saunders, Saunders & Whipple and A. H. Lumpkin, all of San Antonio, for appellant.

Bert B. Thompson, of San Antonio, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Justice.

George L. Beil recovered judgment against Meyer Reich, and writ of execution was issued upon that judgment. In due course the sheriff levied upon certain personal property belonging to Reich, consisting of furniture and fixtures used by him in operating a café in a storeroom on Broadway, in the city of San Antonio.

Reich’s landlord, William Lebo, claiming that Reich owed him $240 in rents due upon the storeroom in question, procured a temporary writ of injunction restraining Beil and the sheriff from selling the property levied upon under said execution, upon the ground, only, that he holds a landlord’s lien upon said property.

Prom an order refusing his motion to dissolve said injunction, Beil has brought this appeal, upon the one contention that, even though appellee has a valid subsisting lien upon the property involved, said property may nevertheless be sold under execution to satisfy the judgment against the owner.

We sustain appellant’s contention. Article 3797, R. S. 1925, and article 5238, as amended by Acts 1933, 43d Leg. p. 282, ch. 112 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 5238); Garrity v. Thompson, 64 Tex. 597; Sparks v. Pace, 60 Tex. 298; Baldwin Motor Co. v. De Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 282 S. W. 832; Wilkerson v. Stasny (Tex. Civ. App.) 183 S. W. 1191. Under the authorities cited, the interest of a mortgagor in personal property is subject to sale under execution; the purchaser taking the same, as the owner held it, subject to the existing incumbrance.

Applying that rule to the ease made here, the property involved is subject to sale under execution to satisfy the judgment against the *188owner and mortgagor, and the title of the purchaser at suc-h sale will he subject to ap-pellee’s lien, if and when established.

There was no .proof or finding of probable waste, removal, or destruction of the property, or of other injury to appellee, and, in the absence of such showing and under the general rule stated, the injunction was improvidently granted.

The judgment will be reversed and the injunction dissolved, at the cost of appellee.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL