alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014354EN.01000102.xml

| 8.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7288 — Viacom/Channel 5 Broadcasting)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 354/02)

On 9 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 32014M7288. 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 32014M7288. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
SERVED: FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MONARCH SKY, LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-1121 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

__ ;. 

_j 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013WP910026) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

President 

Monarch Sky, LLC, Respondent 

1420 Jet Stream Dr., Ste. 105 

Henderson, NV 98052 

President 

Monarch Sky, LLC, Respondent 

500 E. Cheyenne A venue 

North Las Vegas, NV 89030 

ONE COPY 

Cheryl M. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7th A venue # 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5273 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FAA-2014-1121 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by 1;1xpedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard Blass, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
|  
|   | This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.                                                                                 
|  

Date: March 30, 2005

| | /s/ RICHARD BLASS           
| | ----------------------------
| |                             
| | Richard Blass               
| | Executive Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer     

114

---
# C_2014350EN.01000102.xml

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7354 — ADM/WILD Flavors/WDI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 350/02)

On 19 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 32014M7354. 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 32014M7354. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">First Avenue Properties, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Alma McLaughlin, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, and "John Doe/Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, dated December 11, 2015 (Michael L. Weisberg, J), which denied its motion for discovery and granted tenant's cross motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Michael L. Weisberg, J.), dated December 11, 2015, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's cross motion denied, petition reinstated, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.</p><p>Tenant's cross motion to dismiss this nonprimary residence holdover proceeding, premised upon claimed inadequacies in the combined notice of lease nonrenewal and termination, should have been denied. The notice alleged, inter alia, that tenant did not reside at the subject premises for at least 183 days within the past year, that the building management had not observed tenant at the subject apartment building for an extensive period of time and that tenant permanently relocated to the island nation of Jamaica. The notice thus set forth case-specific allegations tending to support landlord's nonprimary residence claim, and was sufficient to satisfy the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) ยง 2524.2(b) and governing precedent (<i>see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites, </i>41 AD3d 144, 144-145 [2007]; <i>Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp</i>., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], <i>lv denied </i>90 NY2d 829 [1997]).  Tenant does not set forth any material allegations within landlord's knowledge that it failed to include in the notice (<i>see Hughes, </i>226 AD2d at 18). Nor does tenant allege that she was misled as to the nature of this proceeding or was prejudiced in responding to the landlord's petition (<i>see Avon Bard Co. v Aquarian Found</i>., 260 AD2d 207, 210 [1999], <i>appeal dismissed </i>93 NY2d 998 [1999]; <i>see also City of New York v Valera</i>, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]).</p><p>In reinstating the petition, we do not pass upon landlord's application for discovery, an issue not reached below. Our disposition is without prejudice to landlord's right to renew its application for such relief in Civil Court.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <p>Decision Date: November 18, 2016</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6609

DENNIS PATTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ALVIN W. KELLER, Secretary, N.C. Department of Correction; 

VANESA GILBERT, Captain, Henderson County Jail,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00280-MR)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Patton, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant 

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Patton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Patton 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11.1

                              THINKING TOOLS, INC.

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except share amounts)


                                                                 December 31,
                                                             -------------------
                                                               1996      1995
                                                             --------  ---------


Net loss                                                     $(2,514)      (589)
                                                             -------   ---------

Weighted average common shares outstanding                     3,152      2,768

Common stock options issued within 12 months of the
Company's IPO in accordance with SEC Rules and Regulations       141        263

Common stock options granted within 12 months of the
Company's IPO in accordance with SEC Rules and Regulations        91        110
                                                             -------   --------


Shares used in per share calculation                           3,384      3,141
                                                             -------   --------


Net loss per share                                           $ (0.74)     (0.19)
                                                             =======   ========
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4725

_____________________________

SAMUEL BOYD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

May 31, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Samuel Boyd, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.2 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF 

THESARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay Levy, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, 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, thefinancial position and results of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ JayLevy                        

Jay Levy 

Chief Financial Officer 

November 14, 2003

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Jake Bello, Ph.D., et al., Respondents, and Patricia M. Bealmear, Ph.D., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Roswell Park Cancer Institute et al., Appellants-Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[773 NYS2d 328]

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered March 5, 2002 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, inter alia, granted the petition for reinstatement of petitioners to their reclassified positions and awarded them back pay.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal and cross appeal be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs (see *Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 23, 2016

s1122

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

153906

SC: 153906

In re CM and AM, Minors. COA: 322913

Mackinac CC Family Division:

2012-006082-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 7, 2016 

judgment and May 23, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to 

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment 

of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals erred by reading this Court’s October 28, 

2015 remand order as “calling for a decision on the merits regardless of any such 

procedural concerns.” We further REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to 

reconsider Mackinac County’s motion to intervene. If the Court of Appeals grants the 

motion to intervene, it shall then permit the filing of Mackinac County’s motion for 

reconsideration. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the 
California Table Grape Commission of Fresno, California, an exclusive 
license to the variety of table grape claimed in U.S. Plant Patent 
Application Serial No. 13/199,300, ``Grapevine Denominated Valley 
Pearl,'' filed on August 25, 2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
(301) 504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's rights in this 
plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this variety as the California Table Grape 
Commission of Fresno, California has submitted a complete and 
sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license 
will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license 
may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this 
published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written 
evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license 
would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 
CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-29734 Filed 11-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04-16-00472-CR

Yessica Y. PECINA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 491719

The Honorable Robert Behrens, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 18, 2016, because Appellant’s brief was late and no motion for extension 

of time to file the brief had been filed, we ordered Appellant’s counsel Edward F. Shaughnessy 

III to file Appellant’s brief by November 28, 2016. 

The same day our order issued, counsel filed Appellant’s brief. Our November 18, 2016 

order is satisfied. 

The State’s brief is due on December 19, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, 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
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 Quarterly Report of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, William Steinhauer, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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/ William Steinhauer     
|William Steinhauer         
|Vice President of Finance  
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 26, 2005            



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015362EN.01000401.xml

| 31.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7757 — AXA/Genworth LPI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 362/04)

On 28 October 2015, 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 the 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 32015M7757. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7757. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
November 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

QUINTON SHANDRA JONES, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00612-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.