alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004178EN.01000601.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3396 — GROUP 4 FALCK / SECURICOR)

(2004/C 178/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 May 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3396. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below: |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3396. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

---
#### Quinten D. PARRISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David W. ZOOK, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6988

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Quinten D. Parrish, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*193PER CURIAM:

Quinten D. Parrish seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parrish has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CH RI STO PH ER D . ZU RCH ER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. G U Y H A L L , S up er i nt endent , T w o R i vers C orr e c t i ona l I ns t i tut i on, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 35881 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 5 7 0 - PK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon G a rrM . K i ng, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O re go n st at e pri soner C hri st op her D . Z urcher app ea l s f rom the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JU N 15 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 35881 2 Z urcher c on t ends thathi s c ou nsel re nd er ed i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l byf a i l i ng t o obj e c t , ba s e d on App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 530 U . S . 466 ( 2000) , t o the i m pos i t i on of

a n upw a r d de pa rtur e f

r om the pr e s um pt i ve s e nt e nc e unde rthe O re go n S ent enci ng G ui del i nes bas ed up on j ud ge-f ou nd fa ct s. B ec ause Z urcher has f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e pr e j udi c e f r om a nya l l e ge d e rr or , the O r e gon c o u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

th is c la im w a s n e ith e rc o n tr a ryto , n o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r lye s tab lis h e dS u p r e m e C o u rt la w . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1); see a l so Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 9 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . AF F I RME D.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 130

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning the situation in Kenya.

Whereas on July 7, a large and violent confrontation occurred in Kenya when police stormed Nairobi’s All-Saints

Cathedral and attacked those present at a prayer meeting;

Whereas prodemocracy activists throughout Kenya have demonstrated in favor of reform of Kenya’s constitution and

the repeal of repressive colonial laws;
2

HCON 130 RFS

Whereas the bloody suppression of the constitutional reform

rallies, the disruptive behavior of some demonstrators,

and the recent ethnic confrontations in Kenya’s Coast

Province have jeopardized both the safety and the political rights of average Kenyans;

Whereas the Government of Kenya has continued to disrupt

opposition rallies and meetings even after pledging to

take a more tolerant approach to them in late July;

Whereas these events led to the consideration in early September of a package of democratic reforms by members

of parliament representing the government and the opposition, but not including representatives of Kenyan civil

society;

Whereas it remains unclear whether long-discussed political

reforms can be effectively implemented in the time remaining before anticipated elections in 1997; and

Whereas colonial laws have given Kenyan President Daniel

Arap Moi sweeping powers to suppress political opponents and thwart reform throughout his 19-year rule:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and commends those Kenyans

4 who have demonstrated their love of peace, law, and

5 order;

6 (2) condemns those who are inciting others to

7 violence, looting, and destroying property;

8 (3) urges an immediate cessation to the violence

9 in Kenya;
3

HCON 130 RFS

1 (4) urges the Government of Kenya to take all

2 necessary and lawful steps to avoid more violence in

3 the future;

4 (5) recognizes President Moi’s response to do5 mestic and international pressure to allow meaning6 ful constitutional and legal electoral process reform

7 through the current package of legislation agreed to

8 by the ruling party and opposition party representa9 tives;

10 (6) calls for the prodemocracy movement to re11 main unified in working toward implementing con12 stitutional, statutory, and administrative reforms;

13 (7) urges rapid progress toward conducting free

14 and fair elections; and

15 (8) urges the United States Government and

16 the international community to continue to work

17 with all parties to encourage the Government of

18 Kenya to ensure a lasting and committed transition

19 to democracy, including an immediate review of the

20 propriety of the time of the next elections.

Passed the House of Representatives November 13,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Matrixx Initiatives, 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,
Carl J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
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/ Carl J. Johnson
Carl J. Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated November 11,
2003
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 27 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 27

                    A resolution amending Rule XXV.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 1995

 Mr. Dole submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                    A resolution amending Rule XXV.

    Resolved, That at the end of Rule XXV, add the following:
    A Senator who on the date this subdivision is agreed to is serving 
on the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works, may, during the One Hundred Fourth Congress, also 
serve as a member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, but in no 
event may such Senator serve, by reason of this subdivision, as a 
member of more than three committees listed in paragraph 2.
                                 <all>
```
### SERVED: April 13, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION· ·;,

In The Matter Of: Solid ·Edge Aviation Respondent 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) 

### DocketNo. FAA-2015-2436 Case No. 2015WP910067

DISMISSAL ORDER 

### On April 6, 2016, the Respondent filed a Notice ofWithdrawal ofRequest for Hearing, stating that the parties had reached a settlement inthis matter. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such withdrawal, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the case withprejudice. THEREFORE, 

### ITIS ORDERED 

### that these proceedings are dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST

- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Darryl M. Williams, Respondent's Counsel Baird, Williams & Greer, LLP 6225 North 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016 TEL: 602-256-9400 FAX: 602-271-9308 Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 160l Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Douglas M
.. Rawald,Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2015-2436 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591**~Attention:** Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executiveofficer of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three and ninemonths ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
|   |                  | By:    |   /s/ Sherri R.  Billings  |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                  |   |   Sherri R. Billings       |
|   |                  |   |   Chief Financial  Officer |
|   |                  |   |                                 |
| Date:  | October 28, 2008 |   |                                 |

 

----
#### Mary E. W. Field, as Executrix of Charles H. Wiltsie, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Dominick Stalica, Individually and as General Guardian of Joseph Stalica et al., Infants, et al., Defendants; Union Properties, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Village of Depew et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Argued January 12, 1943;

decided March 11, 1943.

*183
      *Philip Halpern, Emil L. Cohen*and *Morris Weinstein*for defendants-appellants.

*Ralph A. Lehr, County Attorney (Maurice J. Rumizen*of counsel), for County of Erie, respondent.

*184
      *Harold P. Kelly*for Village of Depew, respondent.

*Frederick T. Sherwood*for Village of Hamburg, *amicus curiae,*in support of position of respondents.

*185
      *Selwyn R. Mack, Village Attorney,*for Village of East Aurora, *amicus curice,*in support of position of respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

In *County of Nassau*v. *Lincer*(280 N. Y. 662) and *Village of Garden City*v. *Roeder*(280 N. Y. 663) this court considered and necessarily decided that under section 116 of the Village Law, in villages the lien of both village and county taxes had priority in chronological order. We find nothing in the provisions of law applicable in Erie county which varies the statutory rule applied in those cases. The Legislature, noting the objections to the rule of priority formulated in the Village Law, has changed that rule by chapters 303 and 770 of the Laws of 1940, but the amendment is not retroactive.

The judgments so far as appealed from should be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court to enter judgment fixing the order of priority of tax liens in accordance with this opinion, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                       567
<INVENTORY>                                      1,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,308
<PP&E>                                           2,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                     843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              875
<BONDS>                                            189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,188
<SALES>                                            723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   723
<CGS>                                              797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,454)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,454)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (129)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,583)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Jacobo GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40152 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Jacobo Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Jacobo Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANT*256ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
# L_2004194EN.01000302.xml

| 2.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 194/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 194/3

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 132 of 29 April 2004
  )

On page 6, in Article 1(2):

for:

‘Where the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance are seised of cases in which the same relief is sought, the same issue of interpretation is raised or the validity of the same act is called in question, the Court of First Instance may, after hearing the parties, stay the proceedings before it until such time as the Court of Justice has delivered judgment. In the same circumstances, the Court of Justice may also decide to stay the proceedings before it; in that event, the proceedings before the Court of First Instance shall continue.’,

read:

‘Where the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance are seised of cases in which the same relief is sought, the same issue of interpretation is raised or the validity of the same act is called in question, the Court of First Instance may, after hearing the parties, stay the proceedings before it until such time as the Court of Justice has delivered judgment or, where the action is one brought pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty or pursuant to Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty, may decline jurisdiction so as to allow the Court of Justice to rule on such actions. In the same circumstances, the Court of Justice may also decide to stay the proceedings before it; in that event, the proceedings before the Court of First Instance shall continue.’

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Dominic MUSGROVE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7119

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Leslie Dominic Musgrove, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas Camilletti, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia; Shawn Angus Morgan, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Dominic Musgrove seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting *156the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). Á certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Musgrove has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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*