alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014325EN.01000101.xml

| 19.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7346 — Montagu Funds / Astorg Funds / Diacine France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 325/01

On 12 September 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 32014M7346. 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 32014M7346. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To the Board of Directors of
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.:



We  have  examined  management's  assertion  about  SUNTRUST  MORTGAGE,   INC.'S
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKS ("USAP") and that the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amounts of $100,000,000  and $15,000,000,  respectively,
as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1996,  included in the  accompanying
management  assertion.  Management is responsible  for the Company's  compliance
with those minimum  servicing  standards and for maintaining a fidelity bond and
errors and  omissions  policy.  Our  responsibility  is to express an opinion on
management's  assertion about the entity's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards and  maintenance  of a fidelity  bond and errors and omissions  policy
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  minimum servicing standards and that the Company had in effect a
fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $100,000,000 and
$15,000,000,  respectively,  as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1996 is
fairly stated in all material respects.


/s/Arthur Andersen LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
January 31, 1997
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **8 2**  **35**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. JEFFREY A. HOPKINS , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the West ern District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3: 04

- c r - 00 267

- FDW

- DCK

- 1; 3:04

- cr - 00268

- FDW

- CH

1; 3:09

- cv - 00227

- FDW )

Submitted : Febr uary 25 , 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010

Before DUNCAN and A GEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMIL TON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
. Jeffrey A. Hopkins , Appellant Pro Se . Michael E. Savage , Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A. Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order s d ismissing as untimely filed his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion , denying his motion for a certificate of appealability, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order denying a certificate of appealability
. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will

no t issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6939

MARK JACOB JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. BUTLER, M.D.; DR. GRAHAM, M.D.,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL; MEDICAL STAFF; FOOD KITCHEN 

STAFF; KEN PEARE; OFFICER BATAKIS; ROBERT ROMENNITI, M.D.; 

SUPERINTENDENT PARHAM; ARAMARK FOODS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District

Judge. (2:15-cv-00316-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Mark Jacob Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Lewis Stone, 

NORRIS & ST. CLAIR P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Mark Jacob Jones appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones 

v. Butler, No. 2:15-cv-00316-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va. June 30, 2016). 

We deny Jones’ motion to appoint counsel, and 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
ENCLOSURE 2

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

AND COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102 and Section 2.1 of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, the following information regarding public participation acti vities and compliance with state administrative procedures is provided.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(a), a public comment period to provide the opportunity

to submit written comment s concerning a proposed revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan was held from August 10 to September 9 , 201 5

.

As required by 40 CFR Part 51.102 (a) and (d)(1) and (2), the public was given notice of

the public comment period in the Virginia Register of Regulations , alo ng with the location of the proposal for public inspection, on August 10 , 201 5

. The notice included procedures to afford the public the opportunity to request that a hearing be held pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102(a); no such request was received. The attached c opy of the notice provides the evidence required by Section 2.1(f) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part

51.

The Regional Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was notified

of the public comment period , as was each local air pollution contro l agency which will be significantly affected by the revision and is located in the affected Air Quality Control Regions. In addition, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Tennessee, which share affected interstate Air Quality Control Regions with Virgi nia, were notified of the public

comment period . These notifications follow the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.102(d)(3), (4) and (5).

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

As required by Section 2.1(b) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, the reg ulation

amendments were published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on June 15, 2015 after being duly adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on September 5,

2014 , certified by the Office of the Attorney General as within the Board’s statuto ry authority on September 15, 2015 and thus fully enforceable under Virginia law, and submitted to the Virginia Registrar on behalf of the b oard by the Department of Environmental Quality as a true and accurate copy of the duly adopted regulation on May 27 , 2015 , providing the evidence required by Section 2.1(b) and (e) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51. As required by Section 2.1(d) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, a copy of the actual regulation submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into

th e Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan is attached, along with the

effective date of July 30, 2015

.

SIP \ NONATTN PLANS \ 201 5 \ E14

- SIP

- 2.DOC
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04-16-00667-CV

Thomas KING,

Appellant

v.

OAK RIDGE APARTMENTS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04897

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to December 23, 2016. “FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE 

DISFAVORED.”

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

 Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

885 

KA 15-00934 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 

LESTER M. STREETER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF 

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

NIAGARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY=S OFFICE, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF 

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, 

III, J.), rendered February 5, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, 

upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon 

in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously 

affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon 

his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the 

second degree (Penal Law '' 110.00, 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant=s 

contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and 

intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 

6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by 

defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally 

People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
r~ 

Q 0'00 

-- __.. 

-- PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

--

~----------~-----------------------------------------------------~--

·-------------------------------~--

-----------------------------------------------·-------------------

------------------------------

-----·----------------._...eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-29-2014 

ursuantto E.O. 13526 

fOP 3ECRElJ 

-----· ·--·-·---------
Exhibit 32.1

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

     In  connection  with the  Annual  on Form 10-K of  InteliData  Technologies
Corporation  (the  "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Alfred S. Dominick,  Jr.,  Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. <129>~ 1350, as adopted pursuant to <129>~ 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


By:      /s/ Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
         -----------------------------------
         Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
         (Principal Executive Officer)

March 12, 2004

This  certificate  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to the Report  pursuant to
Exchange  Act Rule 13a-14 and Item 601 of  Regulation  S-K and not as a document
"filed"  as a  part  of  the  Report.  This  certificate  shall  not  be  deemed
incorporated by reference into any of the Company's  Securities Act registration
statements.



<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  InteliData  Technologies
Corporation  (the  "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John R. Polchin,  Vice President,  Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. <129>~ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
<129>~ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

By:      /s/ John R. Polchin
         ---------------------------
         John R. Polchin
         Vice President, Chief Financial
         Officer and Treasurer
         (Principal Financial Officer)

March 12, 2004

This  certificate  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to the Report  pursuant to
Exchange  Act Rule 13a-14 and Item 601 of  Regulation  S-K and not as a document
"filed"  as a  part  of  the  Report.  This  certificate  shall  not  be  deemed
incorporated by reference into any of the Company's  Securities Act registration
statements.
Order entered October 27, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-22-01125-CV

IN RE PRISCILA BRISENO, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-00330-D

ORDER Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARK C. BUSACK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cr-00054-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark C. Busack, Appellant Pro Se. Jarod James Douglas, Erin 

Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorneys, William J. 

Ihlenfeld, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark C. Busack appeals the district court’s order granting 

the Government’s motion to authorize payment of restitution from 

Busack’s inmate account and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United State v. Busack, No. 

5:15-cr-00054-FEP-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 18 & May 27, 2016). 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
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44230

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EVELINA IGOR BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 787

Filed: November 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Melissa Moody, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of two years, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 

alcohol and/or drugs (one felony conviction within fifteen years), affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Evelina Igor Bennett pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the 

influence of alcohol and/or drugs (one felony conviction within fifteen years), felony, Idaho 

Code § 18-8004, -8005(9). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with two 

years determinate. Bennett appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Bennett’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
MAURICE AVERY STILLS,

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. 1D15-3845

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

John H. Skinner, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Courtenay H. Miller, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,042
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                23,080
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     91,234
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,276
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            20,048
<LOANS>                                        163,062
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,990
<DEPOSITS>                                     277,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,046
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,100
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,476
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 320,990
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,737
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,584
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   262
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,582
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,765
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,782
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,801
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      315
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,750
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         678
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.34
<LOANS-NON>                                        282
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,387
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   384
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,705
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      269
<RECOVERIES>                                       126
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,877
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,148
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,729
        

</TABLE>