alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020351EN.01000201.xml

| 21.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9966 — EQT/Colisée)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 351/02)

On 15 October 2020, 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 32020M9966. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9966. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2020344EN.01001701.xml

| 16.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/17

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2020/C 344/16)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sodium cyclamate | The People’s Republic of China
  Indonesia | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1160 of 15 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
  (OJ L 192, 16.7.2016, p. 49) | 17.7.2021 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Sodium cyclamate

The People’s Republic of China

Indonesia

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1160 of 15 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

(OJ L 192, 16.7.2016, p. 49)

17.7.2021

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

---
From: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com, ksands@centuryky.com, jvanmatre@centurywv.com, danny.carroll@riotinto.com, 

kisnerj@noralnm.com, John.Reggi@ormet.com, Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com

Date: 05/09/2011 10:45 AM

Subject: Visible emissions (VE) opacity monitoring under 40 CFR §§63.845(h), 63.845(i)(4), and 63.848(g)

Hello all,

Part of the Residual risk and Technology Review (RTR) projects conducted here at EPA includes a 

review of the sufficiency of the monitoring requirements in the existing rule [i.e. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

LL in the case of primary aluminum (PAL)]. One monitoring issue that I believe will require some 

additional language is that of visible emissions (VE) opacity from the potlines. Specifically, 40 CFR 

§§63.845(h) and 63.845(i)(4) address VE opacity from new, modified, or reconstructed potlines and limits 

VE opacity from those sources to 10% (with the possibility of limits up to 20% opacity) and §63.848(g) 

requires potline owner/operators to monitor VE emissions from potlines on a daily basis for those 

"indicating abnormal operation." None of these paragraphs specify the method of VE observation. Also, 

the method of VE observation is not specified in §63.849 "Test methods and procedures."

It would appear that Method 9 is required to demonstrate compliance with §§63.845(h) and 63.845(i)(4) 

for new, modified, or reconstructed potlines [i.e. since an opacity limit (10%) is specified].

However, the language of §63.848(g) suggests that Method 22 (or a Method 22-like procedure) may be 

sufficient for existing potlines (i.e. if the existence of any VE is indicative of abnormal operation) to 

demonstrate compliance with §63.848(g). If, on the other hand, the owner/operators of existing potlines 

have established an opacity limit other than any VE (e.g. > 10%) as indicative of abnormal operation for 

those sources, then Method 9 would appear to be required to demonstrate compliance with §63.848(g).

So, my question is this - what method of VE observations is each of you using to demonstrate compliance 

with 40 CFR §§63.845(h), 63.845(i)(4), and 63.848(g), as applicable? Are you using Method 9, Method 

22, or something else?

Thanks,

Chuck,

Again, would you please assist me in getting this question to an appropriate contact at the Reynolds 

Metals St. Lawrence Reduction Plant facility and to the Intalco Aluminum Corporation facility?

Thanks,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - texas(1)

## By Year

Supporting material        July 13, 2023        Citizen Science Call-to-Action Flyer

Podcasts        July 31, 2008        Tribal Canoe Journey for Troubled Sea: Part I

Podcasts        March 13, 2012        Climate Connections: Questions from Glacier National Park, MT (Ep 4)

Podcasts        March 14, 2012        Advancing ARMI: In Search for Chytrid Fungus

Podcasts        April 20, 2011        Climate Connections: Visiting Students in North Carolina (Episode 1)

Podcasts        August 18, 2008        Tribal Canoe Journey for Troubled Sea: Part 2

Podcasts        August 16, 2011        A Study in Stream Ecology
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1


GRUPO TMM, S.A.


SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for
    the year ended December 31, 2004, to which this statement
    is filed as an exhibit (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/ Javier Segovia Serrano
| |                           
| | Javier Segovia Serrano    
| | Chief Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5503 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 

higher education from denying students admission on the basis of immigration or naturalization status. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2016 

Mr. VEASEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

institutions of higher education from denying students 

admission on the basis of immigration or naturalization 

status. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Dream 

5 Promise Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5503 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DENIAL OF ADMISSION DUE TO 

2 IMMIGRATION OR NATURALIZATION STATUS. 

3 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(30) The institution will not deny a student 

7 admission at such institution on the basis of the stu8 dent’s immigration or naturalization status.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Tavaris JERVONTE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lewis Laura Marie LOPEZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2416

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2020254EN.01000201.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9897 – Actineo/SHAM/Antevis JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 254/02)

On 28 July 2020, 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 32020M9897. 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 32020M9897. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Jeffrey MCCURDY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MCFREDERIC NO. 31718, INC., d/b/a Mcdonald's, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1949

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2020197EN.01000101.xml

| 12.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9791 – Signa Retail/Central Group/Globus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 197/01)

On 23 April 2020, 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 32020M9791. 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 32020M9791. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Cynthia Hill DUPONT, Bridgette C. Marcotte & John Hill v. The STATE of Louisiana, Department of Administration, Office of State Lands, through the Office of the Attorney General

NO. 2018-C-1088

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.
Earnest A. DELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1902

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
William D.B. HARNETT, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. In re: ESTATE OF William J. HARNETT, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0701

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Lawrence JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1085

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit 99.1



                          CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC.

                      Monthly Servicer's Certificates Audit
                        (CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2001-2)

                                   May 3, 2002



The Board of Directors
CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.:


We have examined  management's  assertion about CarMax Auto Superstores,  Inc.'s
("CarMax") compliance,  as Servicer,  with section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing
Agreement,  dated November 1, 2001 (the  "Agreement")  between CarMax, as Seller
and  Servicer,  Pooled Auto  Securities  Shelf,  LLC and CarMax Auto Owner Trust
2001-2,  for the period from November 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002,  included in
the  accompanying  Management  Report.  Management is  responsible  for CarMax's
compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management's assertion about CarMax's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and accordingly, included
examining,  on a test  basis,  evidence  about  CarMax's  compliance  with those
requirements  and performing such  procedures as we considered  necessary in the
circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on CarMax's
compliance with specified requirements.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  CarMax Auto  Superstores,  Inc.
complied with the  requirements of the  aforementioned  section of the Agreement
for the period from November 1, 2001 and February 28, 2002 is fairly stated,  in
all material respects.



/s/KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
May 3, 2002




                                Management Report


Management  of  CarMax  Auto  Superstores,  Inc.  ("CarMax"),  as  Servicer,  is
responsible for compliance with the servicing requirements in section 3.9 of the
Sales and Servicing  Agreement  dated as of November 1, 2001 (the  "Agreement"),
between CarMax,  as Seller and Servicer,  Pooled Auto Securities  Shelf, LLC, as
Depositor, and CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2001-2, as Issuer.

Management  has  performed  an  evaluation  of  CarMax's   compliance  with  the
aforementioned  section of the Agreement for the period from November 1, 2001 to
February 28, 2002. Based upon this evaluation, management believes that, for the
period from November 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002,  CarMax, as Servicer,  was in
compliance with the aforementioned section of the Agreement.




/s/ Philip J. Dunn
-------------------
Philip J. Dunn
Vice President

May 3, 2002
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

YENDE FRANCIS,

Appellant,

v.

IAN ZEEK PARETS,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2973

[September 8, 2022]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael G. Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

DVCE21-000006.

Yende Francis, Southwest Ranches, pro se.

Natalie P. Mescolotto of NM Legal, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40054 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. WELMAN ALVARENGA-HE R NANDEZ, also known as Wellman Slvarenga, also known as Gwelman Alvarenza Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-642-1
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Welman Alvarenga-Hernandez (Alvarenga) appeals his sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Specifically, Alvarenga challenges the enhancement ofhis sentence based upon the district court’s determination that his prior conviction for second degree assault is a crime ofviolence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b)(1)(C). Because he has been released from prison and United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40054

2 deported to Mexico, his appeal of his sentence is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007). In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (20 00), Alvarenga challenges the constitutionality of8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions assentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1995). U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART.
Marilyn LINCOLN and Donald Lincoln, Jr. v. ACADIAN PLUMBING & DRAIN, LLC, et al.

NO. 2018-C-1074

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In
connection with theAnnual Report of Pacific Vegas Global Strategies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Kwan Sin Yee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, 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.



|Date: March 30, 2020 | /s/ KWAN SIN YEE       
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Kwan Sin Yee           
|                     | Chief Financial Officer