alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019267EN.01000301.xml

| 9.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9378 — Apax Partners/GNB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 267/05)

On 12 June 2019, 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:

| — | 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 32019M9378. 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 32019M9378. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
NUMBER 13-09-00465-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_____________________________________________________________

WILLIAM GILL, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

______________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, William Gill, filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction for

intoxication manslaughter. By order signed October 9, 2009, the trial court granted

appellant's motion for new trial.

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, it restores the case to its position

before the former trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no conviction to be
2

appealed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d

640, 643-44 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1996, no pet.).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the trial

court's order granting a new trial, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See id. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

28th day of January, 2010.
Exhibit 99.1

[LOGO]                      LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP
                             An affiliate of C-BASS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4828 Loop Central Drive                                 Telephone (713) 966-8801
Houston, Texas 77081                                          Fax (713) 960-0539


   February 23, 2006

   Trust Administration-GS05W3
   Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
   1761 East St. Andrew Place
   Santa Anna, CA 92705-4934


   RE: GSAMP Trust 2005-WMC3, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
       2005-WMC3


   To Whom It May Concern:

   The undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual
   Statement as to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
   for the above referenced security and certifies that (i) a review of the
   activities of the Servicer during such preceding fiscal year (or such shorter
   period in the case of the first such report) and of performance under this
   Agreement has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my
   knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its
   obligations under this Agreement for 2005.

   Sincerely,



   /s/ Janice McClure                                   /s/ Ann Kelley
   -----------------------                              ----------------------
   Janice McClure                                       Ann Kelley
   Senior Vice President                                Secretary




   Inv. 246
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 377,189 | 364,887
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 362,616 | 362,616 | 359,616 | 359,616 | 363,593 | 364,593 | 395,087 | 396,087 | 394,827 | 394,827
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 378,137 | 382,000 | 389,767 | 384,838 | 383,638 | 378,738 | 380,038 | 373,738 | 371,324 | 371,338
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 371,338 | 372,838 | 370,838 | 370,535 | 375,935 | 375,143 | 376,228 | 376,528 | 372,191 | 372,191
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 372,390 | 372,655 | 372,655 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00348-CR

BRANDON LEE NIX APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

On May 5, 2010, after finding that Appellant Brandon Lee Nix violated the 

terms and conditions of his community supervision, the trial court adjudicated Nix 

guilty of, and sentenced him to 120 days’ confinement for, misdemeanor theft of 

property with a value of $50 or more but less than $500. See Tex. Penal Code 

Ann. § 31.03(e)(2)(A)(i) (Vernon 2003).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Nix’s motion for new trial was due June 4, 2010, but it was not filed until 

June 7, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). Therefore, his notice of appeal was 

also due June 4, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). On August 20, 2010, Nix 

filed his notice of appeal with a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal.2

On September 9, 2010, we notified Nix’s counsel of the apparent 

untimeliness of the appeal; requested that he advise whether the motion for new 

trial was properly addressed, stamped, and mailed by the United States Postal 

Service to the proper trial court clerk on or before June 4, 2010; stated that any 

response must be filed on or before September 20, 2010; and stated that the 

appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the court determined that the 

appeal was not timely perfected. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1), (2).3 We have 

received no response.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is 

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) 

(providing that notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing).

The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice 

 

2We denied Nix’s motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal on 

September 27, 2010, because without a showing that the motion for new trial 

was timely filed, the motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal was also 

untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

3Under rule of appellate procedure 9.2(b), a notice of appeal is timely only 

if it was deposited with the United States Postal Service on or before the last day 

for filing and received by the trial court within ten days after the filing deadline. 

Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1). Our September 9, 2010 letter also listed the items that 

we would accept as evidence of proof of mailing.
3

of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an 

appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because 

there has been no showing that Nix’s motion for new trial was timely filed, his 

notice of appeal was correspondingly untimely. Therefore, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 14, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           7,773
<SECURITIES>                                     1,379
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,773
<INVENTORY>                                        756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,579
<PP&E>                                         111,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,623
<BONDS>                                         45,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,403
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,335
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (703)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,671
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A 1 2 1 6

. CHARLI E SHY v

. GEORGI A DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVI C ES, EX REL. CAI RO SHY.

D ef end ant Charlie Shy f

iled this direc t ap peal f

ro m a su p e r io r c o u rt o rd er establishing his p a t e rnity to a mino r c hild and requ iring him t o pay c hild su p p o rt. We

lac k j u risd ic tio n.

“ Ap p e als f

r o m j u d gments o r o rd ers in div o rc e, alimo n y , a n d o ther d o mestic

relatio ns c a ses” mu st be initiated b y f iling a n a p p l i c atio n f

or d isc retio nary rev iew

. OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 ( a) (2), (b). B ec au se t his c ase inv o lv es p aternity and the c ollec tio n o f

c hild su p p o rt, it i s a d o mestic relatio ns c ase w ithin the meaning o f the statu te. See

Bo o ker v. Ga

. D ept. of

Hu ma n Res o u rces , 31 7 Ga. A p p

. 426
, 427 (7 31 SE2d 1 1 0) (201 2) (an a c tio n in w hic h the “ u nd e rlying su bj ec t matter is a f a t her’ s o bligatio n to p ro v id e

c hild s u p p o rt” is “ a d o mestic relatio ns c ase su bj ec t to rev iew o nly by a p p lic atio n” );

Bro wn v. D ept. o

f Hu ma n Res o u rces , 20 4 G a

. A p p

. 27 , 27 ( 41 8 SE2d 404) (1 99 2) (“ Ap peals arising o u t o f p aternity p etitio ns are d o mestic relatio ns c ases w hic h requ ire

c o mp lianc e w ith t he d isc retio nary ap p eal p ro ced u re o f OCGA § 5

- 6

- 35. ” ).

“ Co mp lianc e w ith the d isc retio nary ap p e als p ro c ed u re is j u r isd ic tio nal. ” S mo a k v

. D ept. o f Hu ma n Res o u rces , 221 Ga. A p p

. 257
, 257 (47 1 SE2d 6 0) (1 99 6 ). A c c ord ingly, Shy w as r equ ired t o c o mp ly w ith the d isc retio nary ap p eal p ro c ed u re to o btain rev iew

o f the su p erio r c ou rt’ s o r d er. H is f ailu r e to do so d ep riv es u s o f j urisd ic tio n o v er this

d irec t ap p eal, w hic h is hereby D I SM I SSED

. See Bo o ker

, 31 7 Ga. A pp

. a t 427 ; Bro wn , 204 Ga. A p p . at 27

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. May 01, 2024

05/01/2024
131P01-13

#### State v. Anthony Dove

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

*2.*Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Impartial Jurist

1. Dismissed

2. Dismissed

Ervin, J., recused
#### Robert N. O’NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-2986

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 4, 2017

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
June 5, 2006
FEDERAL EXPRESS Robert 

### Span, Rsq. Paul, Hastings, Jauofslcy & Walker LLP 515 South Flower Street
. 25 1 hFloor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Re: EWR Rates and Charges Dear Bob: 

# ~ ll'1111E IP®Ifff.I.UD"ffi[l!'!ml

### OF NY & 

### NJ
Darrell Buchbinder, General Counsel Carlene V. Mclnfl;re, Chief. Opinions andAppeals Division

This is to confirm that we have ameeting scheduled with you and other representatives from Continental on June 811', 2006 at Port Authority offices on Park Avenue to discuss the flight fee calculations and other concerns raised most recently in your Jetter ofMay 19, 2006. The Port Authmity certaindoes share a common interests in the facts relevant to Continental's understanding ofthe fommlas and computations which govern fees set forth inits lease agreements for EWR and wehope that ourupcoming meeting will be useful in bringing Continental closer to an understanding ofthose items. As you also indicate, however, >ve appear to have a fundamental disagreement on the appropriate scope ofContinental's inquiry into the revenues generated atEWR. You continue to assert that federal law regarding reasonable aeronautical rates "cam10t be waived or abrogated by contract." However, Continental's decision to pay rates and charges under fmmulas set by agreementis entirely consistent with and indeed encouragedby federal law andpolicy. Accordingly, itis our understanding that neither the FAA, through the Airport Compliance Program enforcedunderPart 16, nor the federal courts, in review ofadministrative decisions issued under thatprocess, allow a commercial aeronautical tenant to abrogate a valid conunerciallease with an airport simplybecause that tenant finds it expedient to do so. I look forward to our upcoming meeting. 

# CltU<-{__/ Carlene V. Mcintyre Chief, Opinions and Appeals Division

EXHIBIT BBB 225 PorkAvenue South, 13th Floor New York, NY IOOOJ T: 2 J 2-435-3503
October 10, 2012

No. 12A343.

#### Green *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 20409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10957]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1209-DR]


Georgia; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Georgia, (FEMA-1209-DR), dated March 11, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Georgia, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of March 11, 1998:

    Echols, Lanier and Turner Counties for Individual Assistance and 
Public Assistance.
    Bryan County for Public Assistance (already designated for 
Individual Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-10957 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**






**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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






In
      connection with this Annual Report of La Solucion, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond
      Tejeda-Acevedo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
            Such
                Annual Report on Form 10-kSB for the period ending Cctober 31, 2007,
                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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
                period
                ending October 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and results of operations of La Solucion,
                Inc.




Dated:
      December 13, 2007




By:
      */s/ Raymond Tejeda-Acevedo*


Raymond
      Tejeda-Acevedo


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer [Missing Graphic Reference]
* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted September 13, 2005 * Decided September 14, 2005

Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 04-2473 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. LEONARDO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division No. 02-169-CR-03-M/F Larry J. McKinney, Chief Judge

. O R D E R Leonardo Garcia pleaded guilty to methamphetamine charges, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to a total of 188 months’ imprisonment. His plea agreement includes an appeal waiver made contingent on receiving a sentence at “the minimum level of the applicable sentencing guidelines range,” and though his cooperation with the government earned him a sentence below the 235- to 293- month range that otherwise would have applied, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, Garcia UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 04-2473 Page 2

appeals anyway. He argues that United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), requires resentencing. The government asks that we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. Garcia filed his opening brief before our decision in United States v. Bownes , 405 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2005), which holds that appeal waivers like this one executed before Booker

are enforceable whether or not the parties anticipated that decision, id. at 636-37; see United States v. Cieslowski , 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Peterson , 414 F.3d 825, 828-29 (7th Cir. 2005). Garcia seeks to circumvent Bownes

by arguing that a waiver cannot be enforced against a defendant who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment above the “statutory maximum,” see, e.g. , United States v. Hicks , 129 F.3d 376, 377 (7th Cir. 1997), which, Garcia says, is what happened to him. And while Title 21 expressly authorizes up to 20 years’ imprisonment for dealing in the smallest amounts of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); Talbott v. Indiana , 226 F.3d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2000), Garcia reasons that after Booker and Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the phrase “statutory maximum” means, not the longest term allowed by the code section defining the offense, but instead the guideline range calculated without judicial factfinding. We rejected this argument implicitly in Bownes , 405 F.3d at 636-37, and did so explicitly in United States v. Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). DISMISSED.