alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008316EN.01000101.xml

| 11.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5382 — Kuehne + Nagel/Alloin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 316/01)

On 2 December 2008, 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 website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5382. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5382. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules; Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules will hold a meeting on November 4, 2021 in San Diego, CA. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# DATES:

November 4, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Pacific).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julie Wilson, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: June 21, 2021.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2021-13715 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
**Certification      of Chief Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing**

**Financial      Statements Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|   | **•** |   | fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **•** |   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| **Name:********C.              Troy Woodbury, Jr.******                                                                                                                                                                     |
| **Title:                  **Treasurer                and Chief Financial Officer********                            (Principal Financial Officer)**** |
| **Date:                  July 16, 2007**                                                                                                                                                                          |

----
# L_2008041EN.01000501.xml

| 15.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 41/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 130/2008

of 14 February 2008

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 14 February 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 14 February 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 14 February 2008, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 33,025 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 February 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 February 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1260/2007 (OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 1). Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 October 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1298/2007 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2007, p. 3).

2

---
#### ALNUTT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Charles Alnutt against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Anna F. Ungar, Respondent, v Argo Corporation et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Wallach, J.), entered on January 4, 1985, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Richard Wallach, J., at Special Term. Respondents shall recover of appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TARA SPEICHER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC

)

COMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Tara Speicher, and Defendant, Community Dental Clinic, Inc., having reached 

an agreement to settle this matter, hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims 

by Tara Speicher, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 41(a)(1)(A), with each party to bear her/its own 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

TARA SPEICHER COMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC, INC.

By: /s/ Christopher S. Stake By: /s/ Michael W. Padgett (with consent)

Christopher S. Stake Michael W. Padgett

DeLaney & DeLaney LLC Jackson Lewis P.C.

3646 Washington Blvd. 10 West Market Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46205 Suite 2400

CStake@delaneylaw.net Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Attorney for Plaintiff padgettm@jacksonlewis.com

Attorney for Defendant

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00059-JVB-SLC document 23 filed 08/26/16 page 1 of 1
[No. 20629-3-II.

Division Two.

August 28, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Donnie Gene Hensley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 94-1-00546-1, James E.F.X. Warme, J., entered March 26, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32A








CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Valley National Bancorp (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ira Robbins, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alan D. Eskow, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:


(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/ Ira RobbinsIra RobbinsPresident andChief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2019/s/ Alan D. EskowAlan D. EskowSenior Executive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2019
[No. 19578-0-II.

Division Two.

September 5, 1997.]

#### Richard B. Herman, *Appellant,*v. Harold Potts, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-2-01363-1, Roger A. Bennett, J., entered June 7, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
---

March 29, 2011

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2010, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Andre de Ruijter, P.Eng , hereby consent to the use of my
name in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report.

I have read the Companys Annual Report and confirm that it
documents fairly and accurately represent the information that supports the
disclosure.

Yours truly,



/s/ Andre de Ruijter

---

Andre de Ruijter, P.Eng

Wardrop Engineering Inc.

---
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000014119-JAN-201209:04 AM
Exhibit 10.45



 Exhibit 10.45 

Dominion Resources, Inc. 

Non-Employee Directors’ Annual Compensation 

As of December 31, 2014 
  

			
	 Annual Retainer
	  	 Amount

	 Service as Director
	  	$205,000 ($77,500 cash; $127,500 stock)
	 Service as Audit Committee or Compensation, Governance and Nominating Committee Chair
	  	$22,500
	 Service as Finance and Risk Oversight Committee Chair
	  	$15,000
	 Service as Lead Director
	  	$27,500

  

			
	 Meeting Fees
	  	 
	 Board meetings
	  	$2,000 per meeting
	 Committee meetings
	  	$2,000 per meeting
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-0639V 

Filed: September 7, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

SHARON G. ORTAGUS, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder 

 * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices, Washington, D.C.,, for petitioner. 

Douglas Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On May 27, 2016, Sharon G. Ortagus (“petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder 

injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza 

(“flu”) vaccine on October 13, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On September 7, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

4(c) Report at 1.3 Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA 

and that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the injury was causally related 

to the flu vaccine Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that petitioner met the statutory 

requirements by suffering her condition for more than six months. Id.

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master 

 

3 The Rule 4(c) report, on page 1 and page 5, incorrectly references the date of vaccination as November 

10, 2014. The flu vaccine was administered to petitioner on October 13, 2015. See Petition at 1; Pet. Ex. 

1 at 1.
[No. 35195-8-I.

Division One.

September 8, 1997.]

#### Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, *Appellant,*v. Intrawest I Limited Partnership, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-2-16101-0, Sally Phillips Pasette, J., entered August 4, 1994. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Becker, J.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 0 460

_____________________________
T YREQ J. R OBINSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. January 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Tyreq J. Robinson, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley William PARKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10404.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

*808Leta M. Hollon, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Craig S. Orent, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Stanley William Parks appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Parks first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain or sufficiently identify compelling reasons for its sentence. This contention is belied by the record.

Parks also contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing the sentence under the mistaken belief that *United States v. Knight,*580 F.3d 933 (9th Cir.2009), required a 24-month sentence. Any error was harmless because the district court indicated that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the holding in *Knight. See United States v. Mohamed,*459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.2006) (procedural error reviewed for harmless error).

Parks finally contends that he was denied the right of allocution. *See*Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Contrary to his contention, Parks was afforded the right of allocution, where he had an opportunity to make a statement before the court made its final judgment. *See United States v. Laverne,*963 F.2d 235, 237 (9th Cir.1992) (no violation where the “court was able to consider the defendant’s statement and was free to alter its view of the sentence if the defendant offered a sufficient reason for changing its view[ ]”).

Parks motion for judicial notice of a document attached as an addendum to his reply brief is denied.

The United States’ motion to strike the addendum and portions of the reply brief is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PHIL LEONE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 801 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00115-TLS-SLC document 1 filed 04/01/16 page 1 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00115-TLS-SLC document 1 filed 04/01/16 page 2 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00115-TLS-SLC document 1 filed 04/01/16 page 3 of 3
### Filed 3/13/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 60 Nathan Richard Miles, Plaintiff and Appellee
v. Sierra Marie Holznagel, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20180388 Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judic ial District, the Honorable James D. Gion, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Markus A. Powell , Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and appellee. Mary E. Depuydt , Wishek, ND, for defendant and appellant. State of North Dakota, statutory real party in interest; no app earance.Miles v. Holznagel No. 20180388
Per Curiam. [¶1] Sierra Holznagel appeals from district court orders grantin g Nathan Miles primary residential responsib ility of their minor child and den ying a motion to reconsider or grant a new trial. Holznagel argues the district court erred in finding a material change in circumstances supported the change in reside ntial responsibility and overlooked facts when analyzing the best interest factors. Holznagel further argues the court abused its discretion by limiting an evidentiary hearing to three hours, allowing testimony from certain witnesses and denying a continuance. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (3) and (4)
. [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen Jerod E. Tufte

1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 NationalMercantile Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

                (2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  DAVID R. BROWN      |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | David  R. Brown          |   |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |   |

 

 

Date:  May 13,2005

 

----