alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015330EN.01000102.xml

| 7.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7756 — Providence Equity/Chime)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 330/02)

On 25 September 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 32015M7756. 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 32015M7756. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RATHDAPHONE VONGDEUANE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:14-cr-00400-HMH-9)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

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

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Arthur Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, PA, Beaufort, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rathdaphone Vongdeuane pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to distribute heroin and methamphetamine, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84l(a)(l), (b)(l)(B), 846 (2012). 

The district court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 60 

months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 

Vongdeuane’s sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to 

offer evidence in support of an objection to the application of 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2013).

Vongdeuane filed a supplemental pro se brief which also questions

whether sentencing counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

A defendant may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel on direct appeal only if it conclusively appears from the 

record that counsel did not provide effective assistance. United 

States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014). Absent 

such a showing, ineffective assistance claims should be raised in 

a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to 

permit sufficient development of the record. United States v. 

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, the record 

does not conclusively show that counsel provided ineffective 

assistance; thus, the claim is properly raised, if at all, in a 

§ 2255 motion rather than on direct appeal.
3

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Vongdeuane, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Vongdeuane requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Vongdeuane. 

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,457
<PP&E>                                           1,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                     247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              995
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,660
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (195)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
<FN>
<F1>Represents interest income
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2016112EN.01000102.xml

| 30.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7868 — Tönnies/Tican)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 112/02)

On 26 February 2016, 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 32016M7868. 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 32016M7868. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Opinion issued March 11, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00756-CV

———————————

LINDA WEST, INDIVIDUALLY AS WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY 

OF ROBERT WEST, JR. DECEASED AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE 

OF ROBERT WEST JR., Appellant

V.

IRA H. LIEBER, M.D., LIEBER-MOORE CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, -

P.A., AND TEXAS CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF HOUSTON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2018-78506

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of her 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The Court has not yet issued a decision in this 

appeal.
2

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. We dismiss 

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Hightower.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17912-17913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8171]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act; Notice of Virtual Public Forum for EAC Board of 
Advisors

Date & Time: Monday, April 26, 2010, 9 a.m. EDT through Friday, April 
30, 2010, 9 p.m. EDT.

Place: EAC Board of Advisors Virtual Meeting Room at http://www.eac.gov. Once at the main page of EAC's Web site, viewers should 
click the link to the Board of Advisors Virtual Meeting Room. The 
virtual meeting room will open on Monday, April 26, 2010, at 9 a.m. EDT 
and will close on Friday, April 30, 2010, at 9 p.m. EDT. The site will 
be available 24 hours per day during that 5-day period.

Purpose: The EAC Board of Advisors will review and provide comment on a 
draft version of the EAC Recounts and Contests study. The draft version 
contains information about the laws and procedures each State uses to 
govern recounts, contests, and standards for what constitutes a valid 
vote. The study includes best practices that States use with respect to 
recounts and contests.
    The EAC Board of Advisors Virtual Meeting Room was established to 
enable the Board of Advisors to conduct business in an efficient manner 
in a public forum, including being able to review and comment on draft 
documents, when it is not feasible for an in-person board meeting. The 
Board of Advisors will not take any votes or propose any resolutions 
during the 5-day forum of April 26-April 30, 2010. Members will post 
comments about the draft version of the Recounts and Contests study.
    This activity is open to the public. The public may view the 
Proceedings of this special forum by visiting the EAC board of advisors 
virtual meeting room at http://www.eac.gov at any time between Monday, 
April 26, 2010, 9 a.m. EDT and friday, April 30, 2010, 9 p.m. EDT. The 
public also may view Recounts and Contests, which will be posted on 
EAC's Web site beginning April 26, 2010. The public may file written 
statements to the Eac board of advisors at boardofadvisors@eac.gov. 
Data on EAC's Web site is accessible to visitors with disabilities and 
meets the requirements of section 508 of the rehabilitation act.

Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

[[Page 17913]]

    Signed:
Gracia Hillman,
Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-8171 Filed 4-6-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
#### Williams v. Insurance Placement Facility

*131July 6, 1982

*Rudolph J. DiMassa,*for plaintiffs.

*Jay L. Edelstein,*for defendant.

LORD, J.,

This matter involves a declaratory judgment proceeding by an insured against the insurer concerning the amount of coverage available under three separate insurance policies for three separate properties which were allegedly damaged by fire. Plaintiffs seek to have the court declare that the three policies should be stacked as to each of the three properties.

Initially, defendant, insurer, preliminarily objected on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiffs had already commenced an action in assumpsit, Williams v. Insurance Placement Facility, no. 1010, July term 1980, to recover on the policies and hence this action is merely repetitious of the existing assump-sit action. Though this court found merit in the position taken by defendant, plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint to set forth the legal basis for the stacking of the policies.

After reviewing the amended declaratory judgment complaint and the complaint in assumpsit, this court agrees with defendant’s contention that the ultimate issue presented for resolution in this suit, whether these policies should be stacked, should be resolved in the suit in assumpsit and thus, the preliminary objections are sustained and the amended complaint is dismissed.

*132Though, by the very nature of plaintiffs’ action, the relief prayed for in this action differs from the prior action, see, e.g., Sokoloff v. Strick, 404 Pa. 343, 172 A.2d 302 (1961), this court is of the opinion that a party can not seek a declaratory judgment concerning the damages recoverable on a contract claim when that party has an existing assumpsit claim on the same contract. To allow a declaratory judgment action to proceed under the circumstances of this case would be to usurp the trial court’s function in the assumpsit action.

Moreover, the Declaratory Judgment Act, codified at 42 Pa. C.S. §7531-7541 (hereinafter act) supports this conclusion. The act does provide that the remedy available therein is in addition to other remedies, but it envisions that only one remedy be pursued. 42 Pa. C.S. §7541(b). For example, section 7541(b) states in pertinent part that “Where another remedy is available the *election*of the declaratory judgment remedy *rather than another remedy*shall not affect the substantive rights of the par-ties_” 42 Pa. C.S. §7541(b) (Emphasis added).

Accordingly, the preliminary objections are sustained and the complaint for a declaratory judgment dismissed.
# C_2016275EN.01000201.xml

| 28.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 July 2016

(2016/C 275/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0991 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 116,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4392 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83875 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5370 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0928 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4387 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,035 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,56 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3733 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4660 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3422 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4715 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4497 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5253 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5631 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4926 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 247,17 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,7081 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3311 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4860 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 447,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4893 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,872 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,5463 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,451 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6056 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,6866 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,8700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0991

JPY

Japanese yen

116,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4392

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83875

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5370

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0928

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4387

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,035

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,56

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3733

RON

Romanian leu

4,4660

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3422

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4715

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4497

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5253

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5631

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4926

KRW

South Korean won

1 247,17

ZAR

South African rand

15,7081

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3311

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4860

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 447,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4893

PHP

Philippine peso

51,872

RUB

Russian rouble

72,5463

THB

Thai baht

38,451

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6056

MXN

Mexican peso

20,6866

INR

Indian rupee

73,8700

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6860

ANTON NELSON JOSHUA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00439-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anton Nelson Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6860 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Anton Nelson Joshua, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Joshua’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 

100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joshua 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 before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6860 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
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 Report of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James P. Scullion, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 16, 2006

/s/    JAMES P. SCULLION

James P. Scullion

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06596

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

06596\06596_ CERTIFICATION STATEMENT.pdf Plant certification statement

x 06596\06596_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06596\06596_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 06596\06596_Followup Questions1.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 06596\06596_Followup Response1.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

06596\06596_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06596\06596_PART A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06596\06596_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06596\06596_PART C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06596\06596_PART D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06596\06596_PART H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06596\06596_telecon1.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

x 06596\06596_telecon2.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_OGS A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_OGS A5-2 MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_OGS A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_OGS C2-31 BD-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_OGS D2-3 Ash Pond Study.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_OGS D3-1 D-1 and D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06596\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06596_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.