alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014254EN.01000101.xml

| 5.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7298 — UNIQA Insurance Group / UNIQA Life)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 254/01

On 30 July 2014, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7298. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7298. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2014144EN.01000101.xml

| 14.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7170 — Discovery Communications/Eurosport)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 144/01)

On 8 April 2014, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | 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 32014M7170. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7170. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

718 

CA 12-02400 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

ALICIA M. FLATTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

VIRGINIA D. RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, 

ET AL., DEFENDANT. 

 

LIPPES & LIPPES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK, LLP, BUFFALO (THOMAS A. DIGATI OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley

Troutman, J.), entered February 27, 2012. The order granted the

motion of defendant Virginia D. Rodriguez for summary judgment and

dismissed the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Doc ID: 3785090
Due	to	the	large	size	of	the	manual	PDF	files	and	a	maximum	of 10	megabyte	upload	limit	for	filing	a	petition,	the	documents	are	therefore
available	online.

Any	other	informatio n	regarding	the	DJI	Phantom	3	Professional	along	with
manuals	can	be	obtained	from	the	link	below.

http://download.dji

innovations.co m/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Use r_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3/download
#### Bachmann vs. The City of Milwaukee. Vogel vs. The Same. Steinauer vs. The Same.

Change of Venue, *for prejudice of the judge.*

1. An affidavit merely in the words of the statute (R. S., see. 2625), that the party making it “ has reason to believe, and does believe, that he cannot have a fair trial of the action on account of the prejudice of the judge ” (naming him), entitles such party to a change of the place of trial.

[2. Whether peijury can be assigned upon such an affidavit, *gucere;*but at least an assignment of peq'ury cannot be laid upon traverse of the fact of prejudice.]

APPEALS from the County Court of *Milwaukee*County.

While these actions were pending in the circuit court for Milwaukee county, the plaintiff in each case procured a change of venue to the county court of the same county, upon an *ex fiarte*application and an affidavit of the prejudice of the circuit judge. By the form of the affidavit, the plaintiff in each, case declares “ that he has good reason to believe, and does believe, that he cannot have a fair trial of said action in this court, on account of the prejudice of the Hon. David W. Small, judge of this court.” Thereupon the defendant city appeared in the county court specially for the purpose, and moved in each case that the action be remanded to the circuit court, on the ground that said affidavit did not state facts sufficient to authorize the making of the order of the circuit court for a change of venue. Erom an order in each case denying such motion, the defendant appealed.

The appeals were submitted on the brief of *JD. H. Johnson,*City Attorney, for the appellant, and that of *Jenkins, Elliott <& Winkler*for the respondents.

*436Ryan, C. J.

The affidavit to change the venue in each of these cases follows the statute, could not properly do otherwise, and is sufficient. The venue is to be changed, not upon the fact of the judge’s prejudice, but upon the imputation of it. *Van Slyke v. Ins. Co.,*39 Wis., 390. And the statute, as it now stands, appeals to the conscience of the party for a reasonable apprehension, not for the truth of the fact on which the apprehension rests. It goes upon a statement of belief, not of fact, save in so far as belief may be a fact; upon assertion that the party has reason to believe and does believe that he cannot receive a fair trial on account of the judge’s prejudice, not upon averment of the prejudice itself. *Carpenter v. Shepardson,*48 Wis., 406.

It may be that perjury could not be well assigned on the affidavit. If so, the fault is in the statute, not in the affidavit which the statute prescribes. Certainly, an assignment of perjury could not be laid upon traverse of the fact of prejudice; and the brief of the learned counsel for the appellant is rather a criticism on the statute, than an argument of the insufficiency of the statutory affidavit to support the change of venue. „

*By the Court.*— The order appealed from in each of these cases is affirmed.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-14-00456-CV 

________________

IN THE INTEREST OF V.L.L., J.L.L., AND J.J.L.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CV1206391

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

D.J.L. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor children, 

V.L.L., J.L.L., and J.J.L. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

statutory grounds exist for termination of D.J.L.’s parental rights and that termination of 

D.J.L.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code 

Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O) (West 2014).

D.J.L.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel 

contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the 
2

record. Counsel certified that D.J.L. was served with a copy of the Anders brief filed on 

his behalf. This Court notified D.J.L. of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the 

deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response. 

We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we 

agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring us to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order terminating 

D.J.L.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1

AFFIRMED.

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on January 13, 2015

Opinion Delivered February 19, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 

 1

With respect to withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform D.J.L. of 

the outcome of this appeal and inform him that he has the right to file a petition for 

review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the Interest of 

K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
# C_2014295EN.01000301.xml

| 3.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/3

---

Special Report No 7/2014 ‘Has the ERDF successfully supported the development of business incubators?’

(2014/C 295/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 7/2014 ‘Has the ERDF successfully supported the development of business incubators?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

(Filed: October 24, 2016) 

No. 15-638V 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED 

JANICE BERRY, *

 * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

Petitioner, * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

 * Transverse Myelitis 

v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Gary Anderson, Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for petitioner. 

Darryl Wishard, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master: 

 On June 19, 2015, Janice Berry [“Ms. Berry” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that 

she developed transverse myelitis [“TM”] as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I 

intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified 

as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party 

has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria 

in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for 

redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified 

material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public 

access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. 

Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent 

subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).
2

September 30, 2014. See Stipulation, filed October 24, 2016, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that 

the influenza immunization caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

 Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On October 24, 2016, the parties 

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms. 

 

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment: 

A lump sum of $5,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Janice 

Berry. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available 

under § 300aa-15(a). 

 I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount 

and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in 

accordance with this decision.3 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth 

 Mindy Michaels Roth 

 Special Master 

 

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a 

notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors
Trinity Biotech plc




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form F-3 (Nos. 333-103033, 333-107363, 333-114099 and 333-124385) and in the
registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-76384, 333-220, 333-5532, 333-7762
and 333-124384) of Trinity Biotech plc of our report dated May 8, 2007, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Trinity Biotech plc as of December
31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, recognised
income and expense and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period
ended December 31, 2006, and the accompanying financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 2006, annual report on Form 20-F of
Trinity Biotech plc.






/s/ KPMG

KPMG
Dublin, Ireland


8 May 2007
~~-=--,.:,,--~----~~....,.,.,~-.' ____, .. '..",_·• ___ .... -RRF-- ID·:-A4-8-1-4 41--- -~.----. ~--~-___, 

.,.... t 

From: Tokyo TRANSLATION REVISED 26 Sept: 44 .. To· : Washington. · ~9 

(Jl~) 

November 1941 Lk~) 

Circuiar #2353 ' 

Office'Chief's Code. 

I do not know but what, .as a result of the terrible 

strain ·in our ope.rations, we have at length come to stand amid the . ultimate evil circumstances, and if this be so, our communications 

with the country (:Les) we are dealing with will be cut. And in 

the event that our fqreign .relations fringe on catastropl}e, then 

in the mid~l~ andj:l.t the ,en,.d of our universal broadcasts,';the form of . wea ther~redictions, we will repeat and broadcast twice each the· 

following: 

(1) In the case of Japanese-American relations 

(HIGASHI NO KAZEfl.M.E) . . . . i. 'f.~·"'" "'""'J; ~·°""'' .<..c..r\ w~-./.1, J\C>..o--

(2) In the ease·o(, Japanes$-So~iet relations . ~ ~ A (~,:~ ·~ KAJ_~~'MO~I). . =l\~J~ vr.~d(){WJv~. \ I (3) In the case of Japanese-British relations , (including their 'implications .in Thai along 

with MaJey-a and the Netl).e,rlands East Indies), , (NISHI NO !CilZEHARE) • ,-',;J;.z.;.:~r ""'-~ t..''-H•A 

l1 fV"..h w....:.\ c{L.;:. ~t-' . 

Hence-you will lmow that you are suitably t~ destroy codes· doc.uments, etc. · ··· - -

You will please guard this in strictest secrecy. 

· ·. !Declassified and approved for release by NSA cin 11'-08-2013 putsuant to E: 0. 1352§ · 
,..-~----lfA""'"f_,.,.,.•''""".··"=· .~~ -----· 

#"' X:' 

•' 

Fr~m: T;ekyo T~ : Was~ton 

19 N·evember 1941 . (Jl9) 

Circular #2353 

- TRANSLATION REVISED 26 sept. 44·. Li~) 

I I 

Office Chief's Code. 

I do nc,-t know but what,, as a result of the terrible 

strain in eur opez.ations., we have at length. coI11-e to. staad amid the 

ultimate evil. cireumsta.nces,, and ·if ·this be so, our communicatimns 

With the. count:ry (1es) We a.re dealing With Will 'be cut~, And ia 

the e.ve:at that our foreign relati©ms fringe 0& ca.taatrop}?.e, t'ben . , ·in th~ ~iddle S.J!d at the end, of 0ur universal braad~asts,,Ata~ ferm of . wea.tl:l~,r predictien.s, we will repeat and b-r08dea.st twi~ eact'l.:>th.e 1 • 

f G>ll©wing: . . 

(1) In,'the ea.ee of Japanese-American relations 

,(HIGASHI ~OKA~). . = 

i=::a...c.:t- ~ ,~ • 

(2) In the case of Japanese-Soviet relatioms (KIT~ NO KAZEKUMC>RI). . 'Y\~ ~ ' cil.<i~ . . . . 

«3) In the case or Ja.Mnese-British rela.t1o:as · (inelud1ag th.elr i~I:>licatiens in Thai :a.long.' 

with Ma.1¥4_,ana the Netherland.a East Indies), 

(NISHI· NQ MZEHA.RE) • · lJ~~·,1J.~ 

· code·s 

Hence you will laiow that you ar·e suitably to destroy documents, etc.. · · 

J" 

You will please guard.this in strictest secrecy. 

/ 

...
Exhibit 32.2


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ENACTED UNDER
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                ---------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IGI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carlene Lloyd,
Controller of the Company, state and certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]
1350, as enacted under [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 result of operations of the
Company as of June 30, 2004 (the end of the period covered by the Report).

Date:  August 12, 2004

                                       /s/ Carlene Lloyd
                                       -----------------
                                           Carlene Lloyd
                                           Controller

<PAGE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VASILE RACHITA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72671

Agency No. A200-807-328

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

The record does not compel reversal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

determination that Vasile Rachita failed to establish a prior admission to the United

States and that he is therefore ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(a).

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Page 2 of 2

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility

determination. Rachita has not shown that his testimony described the port of

entry at which he was allegedly admitted to the United States with detail, and

vague testimony may support an adverse credibility determination. Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, Rachita fails to identify

evidence that corroborates his account of how he entered the United States from

Canada. As the BIA correctly observed, the choir photo that he submitted does not

indicate when and where it was taken. The other documents Rachita submitted

may corroborate that he was in Canada in 1998, but they do not corroborate the

circumstances of his entry into the United States. Corroboration may be required

for vague testimony regardless of whether the REAL ID Act applies, see Sidhu v.

INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (pre-REAL ID Act), so we need not

decide whether the BIA improperly relied on the Act’s corroboration standards.

We do not reach Rachita’s challenge to the immigration judge’s finding that

Rachita provided inconsistent testimony. The BIA declined to address the issue

because other grounds independently supported the immigration judge’s adverse

credibility determination, and our review is limited to the grounds on which the

BIA relied. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.