alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004206EN.01000601.xml

| 14.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3497 — PFIZER/CAMPTO)

(2004/C 206/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 July 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(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 304M3497. 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 304M3497. 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

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the use of our report dated March 21, 2003, except for the first
paragraph of Note 4 and Note 12, as to which the date is April 1, 2003,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Barneys New York, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended February 1, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedules, as amended, included in this
Form 10-K/A.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
September 26, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Energy Quest Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wilf Ouellette, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.



|                   |                                             
|------------------ | --------------------------------------------
|Date: May 23, 2011 |                                             
|                   | /s/ Wilf Ouellette                          
|                   | Wilf Ouellette,                             
|                   | Director, President, Chief Executive Officer









|
|
|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEYUN KIM,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 09

- 73640

Agency No. A098

- 251

- 915

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2015 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: CHRISTEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and LEMELLE, ** *

District Judge.

Seyun Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions fo r review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

SEP 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL Sjudge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We deny the

petition for review. “[F]orced conscription or punishment for evasion of milita ry

duty generally does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground

. ”

Movsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005)

. Kim has presented

no “evidence that [he] would be singled out for severe disproportionate punishment

for refu sing to serve in the [South Korean] military

. ” Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453

F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2006) ; cf. id. at 1187 (citing cases involving examples of

severe disproportionate punishment)

.

DENIED.

2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 23, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 23, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0060. GUILLERMO NADAL v. NANCY NADAL.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 18102764
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 19195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Tri-County Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on 
Thursday, May 21, 2009, from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m., in Deer Lodge, 
Montana. The purpose of the meeting is to review funding proposals for 
Title II funding.

DATES: Thursday, May 21, 2009, from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the USDA building located 1002 
Hollenback Road, Deer Lodge, Montana (MT 59722).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patty Bates, Committee Coordinator, 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 420 Barrett Road, Dillon, MT 
59725 (406) 683-3979; e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Review of project proposals submitted for funding under Title II of the 
Secure Rural Schools Act; (2) recommendations to the Designated Federal 
Officer for funding levels; (3) review of next meeting purpose, 
location, and date; (4) and receive public comment. The meeting is open 
to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and 
individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that 
time.

    Dated: April 21, 2009.
M. Earl Stewart,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. E9-9616 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
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 Report of TM Century, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter  ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, R. David  Graupner,  Chief
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 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/  R. David Graupner
----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003



In connection with the Report of TM Century, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter  ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Teri  R.S.  James,  Chief
Financial 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 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/  Teri R.S. James
--------------------
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         HORSESHOE GAMING HOLDING CORP.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000

                                                           STATE OF
SUBSIDIARY                                          INCORPORATION/FORMATION
----------                                          -----------------------
Horseshoe GP, Inc. (1)                                      Nevada
New Gaming Capital Partnership (2)                          Nevada
Horseshoe Entertainment L.P. (3)                            Louisiana
Bossier City Land Corporation (4)                           Louisiana
Robinson Property Group, Limited Partnership (2)            Mississippi
Empress Casino Hammond Corporation (1)                      Indiana
Hammond Residential LLC (5)                                 Indiana
Empress Casino Joliet Corporation (1)                       Illinois
Horseshoe Gaming, Inc. (1)                                  Nevada
Horseshoe Ventures (6)                                      Delaware
Red Oak Insurance Company Ltd. (1)                          Barbados
Horseshoe Maryland, Inc. (1)                                Maryland
Horseshoe Shreveport, L.L.C.(1)                             Louisiana
Casino Computer Programming, Inc.(1)                        Indiana


-----------------
(1)  100% owned by Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.

(2)  99% owned by Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp. through Limited Partner
     interest and 1% owned by Horseshoe GP, Inc. through General Partner
     interest

(3)  New Gaming Capital Partnership owns 89% General Partner interest and a
     2.92% Limited Partner interest. Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp. owns the
     remaining 8.08% Limited Partner interest.

(4)  100% owned by Horseshoe Entertainment, L.P.

(5)  100% owned by Empress Casino Hammond Corporation

(6)  80% owned by Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1007

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Refugio Torres-Ramos, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 4, 2002

 Filed: April 9, 2002

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Refugio Torres-Ramos appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the

district court1

 upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief stating Torres-Ramos

seeks to withdraw his guilty plea.
-2-

At the July 2001 change-of-plea hearing, Torres-Ramos entered a plea under

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). In August 2001, he moved to

withdraw his plea (setting forth his reasons in an attached letter). In October 2001,

however, he moved to dismiss his guilty-plea-withdrawal motion and to reschedule

sentencing (indicating in an attached letter that he did not wish to forfeit a potential

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction); the court granted this motion. In November

2001, the court sentenced Torres-Ramos, without objection, to 135 months

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.

Assuming arguendo that Torres-Ramos has not relinquished his plea-invalidity

claim, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (claim relinquished

below need not be addressed on appeal), we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing his plea-withdrawal motion, see United States v.

Bahena, 223 F.3d 797, 807 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review), cert. denied, 531

U.S. 1181 (2001). Torres-Ramos’s second letter indicated his desire to persist in his

guilty plea, receive an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and be sentenced.

Moreover, in his plea colloquy, he affirmed that his plea was voluntary, that he was

satisfied with counsel’s advice, and that if the government presented its evidence a

jury would likely find him guilty as charged. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d

699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong

presumption of verity); cf. Bahena, 223 F.3d at 806-07 (defendant’s plea-withdrawal

motion was rebutted by defendant’s declaration under oath at change-of-plea hearing

that he understood proceedings, was satisfied with his lawyer, and had committed

crimes charged; plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and defendant did not

show any fair and just reason for withdrawing it).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3384 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3384

   To extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2012

  Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Johnson of 
 South Dakota) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supplemental Agricultural Disaster 
Assistance Extension Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Federal Crop Insurance Act.--Section 531 of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(4)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)(i)(II), by inserting ``the 
                first 5 months of'' after ``received for''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``the first 5 
                months of'' after ``during the''; and
            (2) in subsection (i), by striking ``2011'' and inserting 
        ``2012''.
    (b) Trade Act of 1974.--
            (1) In general.--Section 901 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
        U.S.C. 2497) is amended--
                    (A) in subsection (b)(4)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (A)(i)(II), by 
                        inserting ``the first 5 months of'' after 
                        ``received for''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting 
                        ``the first 5 months of'' after ``during the''; 
                        and
                    (B) in subsection (i), by striking ``2011'' and 
                inserting ``2012''.
            (2) Agricultural disaster relief trust fund.--Section 902 
        of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497a) is amended--
                    (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``2011'' and 
                inserting ``2012''; and
                    (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``the Food, 
                Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008'' and inserting 
                ``Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance 
                Extension Act of 2012''.
    (c) Application.--The amendments made by this section apply only to 
losses that are incurred as the result of a disaster, adverse weather, 
or other environmental condition that occurs during the 2012 crop year.

SEC. 3. OFFSET PROVISIONS.

    [To be supplied]
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 72 (Thursday, April 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8734]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Workforce Investment Act; Native American Employment and Training 
Council

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and Section 166(h)(4) of the 
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) [29 U.S.C. 2911(h)(4)], notice is hereby 
given of the next meeting of the Native American Employment and 
Training Council (NAETC), as constituted under WIA.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time) on 
Thursday, May 21, 2009, and continue until 4:30 p.m. that day. The 
meeting will reconvene at 9 a.m. on Friday, May 22, 2009, and adjourn 
at 12 p.m. that day. The period from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 21, 
2009, will be reserved for participation and presentations by members 
of the public.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Double Tree Hotel 
Sacramento, 2001 West Point Way, Sacramento, California 95815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public. 
Members of the public not present may submit a written statement on or 
before May 14, 2009, to be included in the record of the meeting. 
Statements are to be submitted to Mrs. Evangeline M. Campbell, 
Designated Federal Official (DFO), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4209, Washington, DC 20210. Persons 
who need special accommodations should contact Mr. Craig Lewis at (202) 
693-3384, at least two business days before the meeting. The formal 
agenda will focus on the following topics: (1) U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration Transition; (2) U.S. 
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act Training and Employment Guidance; (3) Election of 
Committee Chair; (4) Introduction of Newly Appointed Council Members; 
(5) U.S. Department of Labor, Indian and Native American Program Update 
and Strategic Planning; (6) Native American and Employment Training 
Council Workgroup Reports; (7) Council Update; and (8) Council 
Recommendations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Evangeline M. Campbell, DFO, 
Indian and Native American Programs, Employment and Training 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4209, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number (202) 693-3737 
(VOICE) (this is not a toll-free number).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2009.
Douglas F. Small,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-8734 Filed 4-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

Nos. 22-1056 & 22-1057

_______________

IN RE: JOHN MICHAEL WALSH; ROSEMARY JOANNE WALSH,

Debtors/Appellants

_______________

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

ROSEMARY JOANNE WALSH

_______________

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

ROSEMARY JOANNE WALSH; JOHN MICHAEL WALSH

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Nos. 2:20-cv-20220 & 2:20-cv-20215)

District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

on April 25, 2023

Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 28, 2023)
2

_______________

OPINION*

_______________

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

John and Rosemary Walsh filed jointly for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company then filed adversary proceedings against them. The bankruptcy court struck the Walshes’ answers and entered default judgments for both Fidelity and Chicago on November 19, 2020. Fourteen days later, 

the Walshes moved for more time to file their notices of appeal. On December 22, thirtythree days after entry of the judgment—well past the fourteen-day deadline to appeal—

they filed their notices of appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). Almost a month later, the 

bankruptcy court denied their motions to extend time. The Walshes never appealed the 

denial of those extension motions. If they had done so, we could have considered whether 

they had good reason for their delay.

Instead, after that denial, they moved the District Court for more time to file their notices of appeal, regurgitating the extension motions they had made below. The District 

Court denied those motions, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to appeal. 

It was right. Under our precedent, the fourteen-day deadline to appeal a bankruptcy-court 

judgment is jurisdictional. In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 112 (3d Cir. 2011). The Walshes 

try to distinguish Caterbone because they had moved for extensions, but that distinction 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding 

precedent.
3

makes no difference. They do not ask us to reconsider Caterbone, so we decline to do so. 

Cf. In re Tennial, 978 F.3d 1022, 1024 (6th Cir. 2020) (Sutton, J.). In any event, the 

Walshes offer no good reason for failing to appeal within fourteen days and failing to appeal the denial of their extension motions. We thus affirm the District Court’s dismissal for 

lack of jurisdiction.