alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016153EN.01000401.xml

| 29.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7980 — Sumitomo/Cosan/Biomassa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 153/02)

On 20 April 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 English 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 32016M7980. 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 32016M7980. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 31.3



I, Gabriel B. Vegh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K (this Amendment) of Cardima, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



Date: May 2, 2005



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    GABRIEL B. VEGH   
|Gabriel B. Vegh          
|Chairman of the Board and
|Chief Executive Officer
AARON HAMILTON,

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. 1D15-4945

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

Aaron Hamilton, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel; and Donna 

A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10141

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BURGESS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-503-1

Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Michael Burgess pleaded guilty to possession of child 

pornography depicting prepubescent minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B). The district court imposed a 180-month sentence, based in 

part on a four-level “vulnerable victim” sentencing enhancement. U.S.S.G 

§ 3A1.1(b). Prior to sentencing, Burgess moved to withdraw his guilty plea, 

asserting the plea was not knowing and voluntary. 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10141 Document: 00513780213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 16-10141

2

Burgess challenges that motion’s denial as well as the “vulnerable 

victim” sentencing enhancement. The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty 

plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Clark, 931 F.2d 292,

294 (5th Cir. 1991). 

The court had broad discretion in deciding whether Burgess had shown 

“a fair and just reason” for withdrawing the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); 

United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984). The court considered 

the factors set forth in Carr and determined, inter alia: Burgess had not 

consistently asserted his innocence; his one-year delay in moving to withdraw 

was not reasonable; he was closely assisted by counsel prior to his plea; and 

the plea was in all other respects knowing and voluntary. The record 

establishes that, under the totality of the circumstances, the court did not 

abuse its discretion by denying Burgess’ motion to withdraw the plea. See

Carr, 740 F.2d at 344.

Burgess concedes that, if his plea is valid, his claim about the 

enhancement is barred by the valid appeal waiver contained in his written plea 

agreement. Because the plea is valid, Burgess’ contention about the 

“vulnerable victim” enhancement is barred by the appeal waiver. See United 

States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10141 Document: 00513780213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
#### Penn Traffic Company, Inc., Appellant, v Camillus Commons, LLC, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 672]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Carni, J.), entered January 8, 2003. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of API Electronics Group Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Phillip DeZwirek, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 for the period ended May 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Phillip DeZwirek                
|Phillip DeZwirek                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|November 28, 2005                   



23
Order entered July 23, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01343

- CV

MATT MALOUF, Appellant

V.

STERQUELL PSF SETTLE MENT, L.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134 th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 02371



### O RDER

Befo re the Court is court reporter Vielica Dobbins’ s request for a final extension of time

to file the record

. She explains the additional time is needed so she can “finish proofing.” We

GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than July 24, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
# C_2016199EN.01000401.xml

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8028 — Fairfax Financial Holdings/OPG Commercial Holdings/Eurolife ERB Insurance Group Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 199/03)

On 27 May 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 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 32016M8028. 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 32016M8028. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned hereby certifies
that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSBA of Cardinal Bankshares Corporation (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2003 which accompanies this certification, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: April 7, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Ronald Leon Moore                                       
|                    |  |  |  |                                                                
|                    |  |  |  | Ronald Leon Moore Chairman, President & Chief
Executive Officer

|                    |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: April 7, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Ray A. Fleming                                                             
|                    |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|                    |  |  |  | Ray A. Fleming Executive Vice President,
Comptroller & Principal Financial Officer



5
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

**Chief Executive Officer Certification pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I,Ricardo A. Verdaguer, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared,

(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003)], 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

April 9, 2007
# C_2016210EN.01000201.xml

| 11.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8029 — KNB/Mitsui/DVHP/DaVita)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 210/03)

On 6 June 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 32016M8029. 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 32016M8029. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Forsyth Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy  M.  Perry,  President  &  Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)  The  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
     31,  2004  (the "Periodic Report"), to which this Certification is attached
     as  Exhibit  32.1, 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

/s/  Timothy  M.  Perry
-----------------------

Timothy M. Perry
President & Principal Executive Officer
March 30, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40543

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEVIN BRIAN FAVORS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CR-295-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Favors appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to

aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine. He argues

that the Government failed to prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that he possessed the 12.4 grams of crack cocaine that

the district court attributed to him as relevant conduct and that

the substance was in fact crack cocaine. After reviewing the

record and the briefs of the parties, we hold that the district

court did not err in attributing the additional 12.4 grams of

crack cocaine to Favors as relevant conduct. See United States

v. Bryant, 991 F.2d 171, 177 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 

-2-

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries of Simon Property Group, L.P.

|Subsidiary                                                     |  | Jurisdiction  
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|The Retail Property Trust                                      |  | Massachusetts 
|Simon Property Group (Illinois), L.P.                          |  | Illinois      
|Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.                             |  | Texas         
|Shopping Center Associates                                     |  | New York      
|Simon Capital Limited Partnership                              |  | Delaware      
|M.S. Management Associates, Inc.                               |  | Delaware      
|Rosewood Indemnity, Ltd.                                       |  | Bermuda       
|Marigold Indemnity, Ltd.                                       |  | Delaware      
|Simon Business Network, LLC                                    |  | Delaware      
|Simon Brand Ventures, LLC                                      |  | Indiana       
|Simon Global Limited                                           |  | United Kingdom
|Simon Services, Inc.                                           |  | Delaware      
|Simon Property Group Administrative Services Partnership, L.P. |  | Delaware      
|SPGGC, Inc.                                                    |  | Virginia      
|Kravco Simon Investments, L.P.                                 |  | Pennsylvania  
|Kravco Simon Company                                           |  | Pennsylvania  
|Chelsea Property Group, Inc.                                   |  | Delaware      
|CPG Partners, L.P.                                             |  | Delaware      

Omits
names of subsidiaries that as of December 31, 2005 were not, in the aggregate, a "significant subsidiary".

119

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KHALIL WALKER SHABAZZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 79 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-1424

___________

Reginald Ivy, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7, 1996

 Filed: November 25, 1996 

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Ivy appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 1

2255 motion. We affirm.

In March 1994, Ivy pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of

a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he was sentenced to thirty

months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a state sentence for

first-degree assault. Ivy did not appeal.

Ivy filed this section 2255 motion, asserting as grounds for

relief (1) his prosecution was unlawful; (2) defense counsel

supplied false information; and (3) the sentence imposed exceeded
-2-

the maximum sentence authorized. The district court granted the

government's motion to dismiss and denied relief without an

evidentiary hearing, reasoning that Ivy's claims were procedurally

barred and could not be raised in a section 2255 motion absent a

showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of

justice. Ivy appeals.

This court affirms the summary denial of a section 2255 motion

without an evidentiary hearing only if, upon a de novo review of

the record, the court is persuaded that the motion, files, and

records of the case conclusively show that the movant is not

entitled to relief. See Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348,

1351 (8th Cir. 1992).

We agree Ivy is barred from raising his sentencing and

statutory claims in a section 2255 motion. See Ramey v. United

States, 8 F.3d 1313, 1314 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (section

2255 not available to correct errors which could have been raised

at trial or on direct appeal, absent showing of cause and actual

prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice); see also United

States v. Ward, 55 F.3d 412, 413 (8th Cir. 1995) (all arguments--

including constitutional and jurisdictional ones--should be raised

at trial or on direct appeal to the fullest extent possible;

sentencing issue not constitutional or jurisdictional); Anderson v.

United States, 25 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 1994) (claim that

statutory elements of crime not met, not constitutional or

jurisdictional). 

While a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is

cognizable in a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Magee, 19

F.3d 417, 420 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 343 (1994),

Ivy's claim--which fails to allege how counsel was ineffective--is

too vague and conclusory to merit relief. See United States v.
-3-

Robinson, 64 F.3d 403, 405 (8th Cir. 1995) (movant's allegations

of attorney coercion too vague and conclusory to warrant
-4-

evidentiary hearing).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.