alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022008EN.01000501.xml

| 7.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10491 – Allianz/Intelsat)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 8/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Allianz SE (‘Allianz’, GERMANY), |
| --- | --- |

—

Allianz SE (‘Allianz’, GERMANY),

| — | Intelsat Holdings S.A. (‘Intelsat’, USA) |
| --- | --- |

—

Intelsat Holdings S.A. (‘Intelsat’, USA)

Allianz acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Intelsat

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Allianz: Allianz is the ultimate parent of the Allianz group, a global financial services company active predominantly in relation to life and non-life insurance and asset management, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Allianz: Allianz is the ultimate parent of the Allianz group, a global financial services company active predominantly in relation to life and non-life insurance and asset management,

| — | for Intelsat: operation of satellite networks, ground networks and connectivity infrastructure and provision of diversified communications services to customers such as telecommunications operators, media companies, and internet service providers. Intelsat uses its satellites as relay stations in space for the transmission of voice, video, and data communications. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Intelsat: operation of satellite networks, ground networks and connectivity infrastructure and provision of diversified communications services to customers such as telecommunications operators, media companies, and internet service providers. Intelsat uses its satellites as relay stations in space for the transmission of voice, video, and data communications.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10491 — Allianz/Intelsat

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LEIGHTON A. LEE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1226

[ October 12, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Geoffrey D. Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No.

15002403CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D.

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., M AY and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2022369EN.01000601.xml

| 27.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/6

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2022/C 369/05)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will expire.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Barium carbonate | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1759 of 27 September 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (OJ L 250, 28.9.2017, p. 34) | 29.9.2022 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Barium carbonate

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1759 of 27 September 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(OJ L 250, 28.9.2017, p. 34)

29.9.2022

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 13.1.2022, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(3)  The measure will expire at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

---
# C_2022374EN.01001701.xml

| 30.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/17

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2022/C 374/06)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 16.8.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 16.8.2022 - 31.12.2022 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | ALB/AN05N |
| Species | Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) |
| Zone | Atlantic Ocean, north of 5°N |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 05/TQ109 |

Date and time of closure

16.8.2022

Duration

16.8.2022 - 31.12.2022

Member State

Ireland

Stock or Group of stocks

ALB/AN05N

Species

Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)

Zone

Atlantic Ocean, north of 5°N

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

05/TQ109

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
Impurity and CAS Registry Number

(a)

Maximum

percent

(b)

Confidential

CBI CBI

CBI

CBI CBI

CBI

CBI CBI

CBI CBI

CBI CBI

CBI CBI

CBI CBI

CBI CBI

TS-P999BH

( CBI )

Attachment 3

 Page 1/1
#### RAYBURN v. STATE.

No. 19475.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1938.

Hal O. McConnell, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 5 years.

Notice of appeal was given on the 23d of July, 1937. The.statement of facts was filed on the 23d of October, 1937, which was 92 days after the date of notice of appeal. Under the provisions of article 760, C.C.P., appellant had 90 days from the date of notice of appeal in which to file the statement of facts.

In the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to appraise the exceptions to the charge of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 7, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41458 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v.

GERARDO JOSE GUTIERREZ, also known as polsIII

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

No. M-02-CR-769-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed DefendantAppellant Gutierrez’s conviction and sentence. See United States

v. Gutierrez, No. 03-41458, 110 Fed. Appx. 407, 407-08 (5th Cir.

2004) (per curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment,

Gutierrez filed a petition for certiorari, in which he challenged
1 Specifically, Gutierrez argues that the district court

erred because it: (1) enhanced his sentence based on facts not

admitted by him or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and

(2) sentenced him under the assumption that the Guidelines were

mandatory. Gutierrez admits that he did not preserve this claim

in the district court and that he cannot satisfy his burden to

show prejudice under the plain-error test as enunciated in United

States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005). However,

in an effort to preserve the issue for further review by the

Supreme Court, he argues that Booker error should be construed as

structural error and that prejudice should be presumed.

-2-

for the first time the constitutionality of the Sentencing

Guidelines as applied to him.1 The Supreme Court granted

Gutierrez’s petition for certiorari, vacated our judgment, and

remanded the case to this court for further consideration in

light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We now

reconsider the matter in light of Booker and decide to reinstate

our previous judgment affirming Gutierrez’s conviction and

sentence.

Because Gutierrez did not raise any Booker-related

challenges to his sentence until his petition for certiorari, we

will not review his claim absent extraordinary circumstances. 

United States v. Taylor, No. 03-10167, 2005 WL 1155245, at *1

(5th Cir. May 17, 2005). Gutierrez concedes that his claim would

fail under the plain-error test discussed in United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), and he therefore

clearly has not met the even more exacting test required to show

the presence of extraordinary circumstances. See Taylor, 2005 WL

1155245, at *1. Accordingly, we decline to consider the merits
-3-

of his Booker challenge. See id. Having reconsidered our

decision pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we

REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT affirming Gutierrez’s conviction and

sentence.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3011 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3011

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase the penalties 
  applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after 
                             being removed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2015

 Mr. Salmon (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Zinke, 
  Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Clawson of 
   Florida, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Gosar, Mr. McClintock, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. 
 Marino, Mr. Ross, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Brat, 
 Mr. Marchant, Mr. Blum, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Babin, Mr. Palmer, 
   Mr. Jones, and Mr. Yoho) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase the penalties 
  applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after 
                             being removed.

    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 ``Establishing Mandatory Minimums for 
Illegal Reentry Act of 2015'' or as ``Kate's Law''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR REENTRY OF REMOVED ALIENS.

    Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
        (2) by striking ``fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
        imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both'' and inserting 
        ``imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 6 years''; 
        and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``fined under 
                title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 
                10 years, or both'' and inserting ``imprisoned not less 
                than 5 and not more than 10 years, and may, in 
                addition, be fined under title 18, United States 
                Code'';
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``fined under 
                such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or 
                both'' and inserting ``imprisoned not less than 5 and 
                not more than 20 years and may, in addition, be fined 
                under such title''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``fined under 
                title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more 
                than 10 years, or both'' and inserting ``imprisoned for 
                not less than 5 and not more than 10 years and may, in 
                addition, be fined under such title''.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Micheal Todd Wray v. Richard Picard

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00188

- CV

Trial court case number: 18

- CV

- 0640

Trial court: 10th District Court of Galveston County

The motion for rehearing is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Landau.

Date:

___ December 15, 2020

_____
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2008 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I,
Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: July 28, 2008



/s/ ALAN CAMPBELLAlan CampbellChief Financial Officer, Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
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 Quarterly Report of AdvancePCS (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I David D. Halbert, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DAVID D. HALBERT                                   
|                                                          
|David D. Halbert Chief Executive Officer November 13, 2003



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    YON Y. JORDEN                                   
|                                                       
|Yon Y. Jorden Chief Financial Officer November 13, 2003
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Consolidation Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard S. Polep, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Registrant

 

Date: September 19, 2012

  

*Consolidation Services, Inc.*

* *

*By: /s/ Richard S. Polep*

  

  

Richard S. Polep

  

  

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### ARNOLD v. STATE.

No. 13911.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 11, 1931.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1931.

Y. L. Shurtleff, of Breckenridge, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for theft of an automobile belonging to W. W. McCallie; punishment was assessed* at two years in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception are brought forward. Two requested special charges were refused, but it does not appear from any notation thereon that any exception was reserved to the action of the court in declining to give them. They are only indorsed “refused” over the judge’s signature. In such condition they may not be considered. See Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Or. R. 316, 250 S.W. 703, in which the question was discussed at length in both the original opinion and the opinion on rehearing, and many authorities referred to. See, also, Cunningham v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 262 S.W. 491; Benson v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 268, 287 S. W. 1097.

The car was stolen on a Sunday night from a point near a church in the city of Breckenridge where it had been driven by McCallie’s wife. The car was discovered on Wednesday near a creek about two miles from the city. It had been stripped of practically all removable parts, including the casings, tubes, an'd rims. In fact, about all that remained of the car was the body and the top. Some of the casings and tubes had certain marks or peculiarities about them by which the owner could identify them. A few days after the theft, appellant was arrested in Mineral Wells where he was trying t.o sell casings and tubes which he then had in his possession, some of which were positively identified by McCallie as those taken from his car. If appellant made any explanation of his possession of the stolen property at the time of his arrest, it is not disclosed by the record. No testimony was offered by appellant on the trial. The evidence sustains the conviction.

, The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing,

MORROW, P. J.

That an automobile was stolen is definitely shown by the evidence. After being stolen, *50it was removed from tire street in Breckenridge to a point some distance from that city, and the movable parts thereof taken away. Some of these parts were afterwards found, in the possession of the appellant. Such finding affected him as the possessor of recently stolen property, and such possession, unexplained, together with the other facts mentioned, was sufficient to identify him as the taker of the automobile. The precedents up>on the subject are numerous. Many of them are cited by Mr. Branch in his Ann. Tex. P. C. §§ 2463-2465, inclusive.

The jury was adequately instructed upon the law of circumstantial evidence, and their finding under the record is'binding upon this court.

The motion is overruled.
Opinion filed September 26 , 201 3



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 13

- 00035

- C V

__________

M&M ELEVATOR COMPANY, LTD.

, Appellant

V.

ELIAZAR TREVINO, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT

FRIEND OF ELIAZAR TREVINO, III, LAI L YANA TREVINO,

AND URIJAH TREVINO , Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C

- 128,532

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

M&M Elevator Company, Ltd., is the appellant in this appeal. It has filed an

unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). In

the motion, A ppellant states

, “ T he parties have reached an agreement to settle and2 compromise the issues between them.” Appellant asks this court to dismiss the

appeal. Therefore, in accordance with A ppellant’s request, we dismiss the appeal.

The motion to dismiss is granted

, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

September 26 , 2013

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Consolidation Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary D. Kucher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Registrant

 

Date: September 19, 2012

  

*Consolidation Services, Inc.*

* *

*By: /s/ Gary D. Kucher*

  

  

Gary D. Kucher

  

  

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|