alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014143EN.01000101.xml

| 13.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7149 — La Banque Postale/SNCF/SOFIAP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 143/01

On 30 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 the French 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 32014M7149. 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 32014M7149. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent




The Board of Directors
PLD Telekom Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PLD Telekom Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which
report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) for the
year ended December 31, 1998 of PLD Telekom Inc.

Our report dated March 30, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has a net capital
deficiency and a working capital deficiency, and does not presently have
sufficient funds on hand to meet its current debt service obligations. These
factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.




                                       KPMG LLP



New York, New York
August 27, 1999
EXHIBIT  99.2

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

     In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of Forsyth Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy  D.  Foreman,  Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer,
certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as enacted 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/ Timothy D. Foreman
----------------------

Timothy D. Foreman
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer
March 27, 2003



<PAGE>
# C_2015405EN.01000701.xml

| 5.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 405/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 405/7

---

Call for expression of interest — invitation to present products suitable for use as a marker in gas oils and kerosene

(2015/C 405/07)

Notice is hereby given of the corrigendum to the call for expression of interest inviting applicants to present products suitable for use as a fiscal marker in gas oil and kerosene launched on 11 September 2015 (OJ C 299, p. 28).

The corrigendum and the call for expression of interest are available under the following link:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/excise_duties/energy_products/other_energy_tax_leg/call_euromarker_en.htm

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PACIFIC WEST SECURITIES, INC.; et 

al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

JOANNA GEORGE; RANDY GEORGE,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14-15628

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04260-JSC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted November 16, 2016***

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Joanna George and Randy George appeal pro se from the district court’s 

judgment denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award entered against them

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

NOV 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-15628 

and granting plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the arbitration award. We review de 

novo the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award and deny a 

motion to vacate the award. Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th 

Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Georges’s motion to vacate the arbitration 

award. First, Georges failed to show evident partiality on account of either nondisclosure or actual bias as to one of the arbitrators. See 9 U.S.C § 10(a)(2)

(providing basis for vacatur due to evident partiality of arbitrators); Lagstein v. 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 645-46 (9th Cir. 2010)

(explaining bases for showing evident partiality); Woods, 78 F.3d at 427 (the 

“party alleging evident partiality [in actual bias cases] must establish specific facts 

which indicate improper motives” (alteration in original; citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)); see also New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald 

Films, Inc., 501 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[C]ourts have rejected claims of 

evident partiality based on long past, attenuated, or insubstantial connections 

between a party and an arbitrator.” (internal citation omitted)). 

Second, Georges failed to show the arbitrators were “guilty” of prejudicial

misconduct or misbehavior. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) (providing basis for vacatur due to 
3 14-15628 

arbitrator misconduct or misbehavior); see U.S. Life Ins. v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co., 

591 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “[a]rbitrators enjoy wide 

discretion to require the exchange of evidence, and to admit or exclude evidence, 

how and when they see fit” and that the movant for vacatur had a fundamentally 

fair hearing where “[i]t had notice, it had the opportunity to be heard and to present 

relevant and material evidence, and the decisionmakers were not infected with 

bias” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
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

I, David W.
Froesel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Omnicare,
Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The
  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,
  2006 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
  78o(d)); and
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | 2. | The
  information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                       

|                       |                             | 
|---------------------- | --------------------------- | 
|Date: August
  9, 2006 |                            
|                       |                            
|                       | /s/ David W.
  Froesel, Jr.
|                       |                             | 
|                       | David W.
  Froesel, Jr.    
|                       | Senior Vice
  President and
|                       | Chief
  Financial Officer  

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,449,679
<SECURITIES>                                   765,660
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,217,001
<PP&E>                                       2,702,140
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,011,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,391,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          848,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,182
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,384,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,391,039
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               572,549
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,985,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,412,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,412,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,412,655)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                           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 of Metris Companies Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David D. Wesselink, Chairman and 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, 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/ DAVID D. WESSELINK
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    David D. Wesselink
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

April 29, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2021

NO. 03-19-00556-CR

Cody A. Carpenter, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF IRION COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgments of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
1 Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)

S OTOMAYOR , J., concurring 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BROOKS v. ALABAMA

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
No. 15–7786 (15A755) (Decided January 21, 2016)]

The application for stay of ex ecution of sentence of death presented to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
J USTICE S OTOMAYOR , with whom J USTICE G INSBURG joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari. This Court’s opinion upholding Alabama’s capital sen

tencing scheme was based on Hildwin v. Florida , 490 U. S. 638 (1989) ( per curiam ), and Spaziano v. Florida , 468 U. S. 447 (1984), two decisions we recently overruled in Hurst

v. Florida , 577 U. S. ___ (2016). See Harris v. Alabama

, 513 U. S. 504 (1995). I nonetheles s vote to deny certiorari in this particular case because I believe procedural obsta

cles would have prevented us from granting relief.2 BROOKS v . ALABAMA

B REYER , J., dissenting

J USTICE B REYER , dissenting from denial of application for stay of execution and petition for certiorari. Christopher Eugene Brooks was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama’s procedures, which allow a jury to render an “advisory verdict” that “is not binding on the court.” Ala. Code §13A–5–47(e) (2006). For the reasons explained in my opinions concurring in the judgment in Hurst v. Florida, ante, at 1, and Ring v. Arizona , 536 U. S. 584, 613–619 (2002), and my dissenting opinion in Schriro

v. Summerlin , 542 U. S. 348, 358–366 (2004), I dissent from the order of the Court to deny the application for stay of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari. Moreover, we have recognized that Alabama’s sentenc

ing scheme is “much like” and “based on Florida’s sentenc

ing scheme.” Harris v. Alabama , 513 U. S. 504, 508 (1995). Florida’s scheme is unconstitutional. See Hurst
, ante, at 1 (B REYER , J., concurring in judgment). The unfairness inherent in treating this case differently from others which used similarly unconstitutional procedures only underscores the need to reconsider the validity of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See Glossip v. Gross , 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (B REYER , J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). I respectfully dissent.
# CA2014358EN.01000601.xml

| 10.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 358/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 358/6

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 358 A/02

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 211 | |
| 217 | |
| 219 | |
| 242 | |
| 254 | |
| 255 | |
| 256 | (LV) |
| 258 | (RO) |
| 262 | (EN) |
| 267 | (SL) |
| 270 | (FR) |
| 272 | (DA) |
| 274 | (IT) |
| 277 | |
| 283 | |
| 289 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 293 | (NL) |
| 295 | (MT) |
| 297 | |
| 299 | |
| 304 | |
| 321 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 325 | (SL) |
| 332 | |
| 334 | |
| 340 | |
| 342 | (EN) |
| 352 | |
| 354 | |
| 358 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

211

217

219

242

254

255

256

(LV)

258

(RO)

262

(EN)

267

(SL)

270

(FR)

272

(DA)

274

(IT)

277

283

289

(DE/EN/FR)

293

(NL)

295

(MT)

297

299

304

321

(DE/EN/FR)

325

(SL)

332

334

340

342

(EN)

352

354

358

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                       259
<INVENTORY>                                      3,024
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,908
<PP&E>                                          10,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,119)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,159
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,441
<SALES>                                         12,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,792
<CGS>                                            7,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,741)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,583)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (984)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,308)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)


</TABLE>
# CA2014164EN.01000101.xml

| 29.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 164/1

---

Extension of the deadline for applications to be appointed as a member of the Administrative Board of Review

2014/C 164 A/01

The ECB hereby announces that the deadline for the submission of applications under the call for expressions of interest from external experts to be appointed as a member or alternate of the Administrative Board of Review of the European Central Bank (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 1 May 2014 (1), is extended until 2 June 2014.

Official Journal of the European Union

1

2 June 2014

Frankfurt am Main, 23 May 2014.

---

(1)  OJ C 133 A, 1.5.2014, p. 1.

1

---