alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 306/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 306 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5710 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 306

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5710 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 306/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7362 — HIG/Aviapartner) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 306/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7368 — Riverstone / Carlyle / Hestya / HES) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 306/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7362 — HIG/Aviapartner) (1)

1

2014/C 306/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7368 — Riverstone / Carlyle / Hestya / HES) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 306/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2014/C 306/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 21 May 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7009 — Holcim / Cemex West — Rapporteur: United Kingdom | 3 |
| 2014/C 306/05 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Holcim / Cemex West (M.7009) | 5 |
| 2014/C 306/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 5 June 2014 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.7009 — Holcim/Cemex West) (notified under document C(2014) 3649)
   (1) | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 306/03

Euro exchange rates

2

2014/C 306/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 21 May 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7009 — Holcim / Cemex West — Rapporteur: United Kingdom

3

2014/C 306/05

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Holcim / Cemex West (M.7009)

5

2014/C 306/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 5 June 2014 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.7009 — Holcim/Cemex West) (notified under document C(2014) 3649)
   (1)

(notified under document C(2014) 3649)

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 306/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7360 — 21st Century Fox/Apollo) (1) | 11 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 306/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7360 — 21st Century Fox/Apollo) (1)

11

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Sanford M. Blair, Appellant, v Northeastern Industrial Park, Inc., Respondent.

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Brown, J.), entered May 14, 1985 in Schoharie County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Justice Loren N. Brown at Special Term. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Levine, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN J. KELLER,

Respondent

PER CURIAM:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

No. 1363 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 43 DB 2008

Attorney Registration No. 10282

(Lehigh County)

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2014, there having been filed with this Court

by John J. Keller his verified Statement of Resignation dated August 25, 2014, stating

that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in

accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of John J. Keller is accepted; he is disbarred on

consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and he shall comply with

the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the

Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
#### Mary E. Letizia, Respondent, v Thomas Letizia, Appellant.

—In an action for a separation and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nicolai, J.), dated October 26, 1984, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion to disqualify his counsel from representing him in the action.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A partner in the firm retained by the defendant to represent him in this matrimonial action had previously been a partner in the firm representing the plaintiff. The retainer agreement between the plaintiff and her firm cited this attorney, Ronald A. Phillips, as the attorney-in-charge of the case up until the time of trial, and provided that Mr. Phillips would assign associates in the firm to the day-to-day activities in connection with the case.

Plaintiffs counsel alleges that Mr. Phillips took part in discussions of the plaintiffs case as was customary at the regular meetings of the firm’s attorneys. Therefore, plaintiffs counsel maintains that Mr. Phillips should be disqualified under Code of Professional Responsibility, canon 9, which states: "A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety”, and that the entire firm should be disqualified under the principle of attribution.

Mr. Phillips contends that he never had any contact with the plaintiffs case while employed by the plaintiff’s firm. He alleges that he would not become involved in cases until litigation commenced, and the plaintiff did not commence her action until more than seven months after he had left the plaintiffs firm. Moreover, Mr. Phillips argues that the defendant should be allowed to retain a firm of his own choosing.

An attorney must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of impropriety *(Cardinale v Golinello,*43 NY2d 288). The court must weigh the interests of the client desirous of retaining an attorney of his or her own choice against the interests of the opposing litigant to be free from the risks of opposition by a lawyer once privy to that litigant’s confidence *(Cardinale v Golinello, supra; Greene v Greene,*47 NY2d 447).

The facts of this case give rise to an appearance of impro*588priety on the part of Mr. Phillips. Therefore, he is disqualified from representing the defendant in this action. Furthermore, the entire firm is also disqualified under the principle of attribution *(Cardinale v Golinello, supra).*Defendant’s interest in retaining a firm of his own choice is outweighed by the plaintiff’s overriding interest in being free from the risk of opposition by a lawyer once privy to her confidences. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Salvador Ruiz MAGANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72031.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

John Ayala, Esquire, Alma Cobos-Aya-la, Cobos & Ayala, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Ruiz Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) grant of cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. *Brezilien v. Holder,*569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part, and dismiss in par t, the petition for review.

Magana’s contention that his conviction for violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11360(a) is not categorically a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is foreclosed by our decision in *Mielewczyk v. Holder,*575 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir.2009) (“[0]ur statement that ‘solicitation is not a [removable] offense under [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) ],’ applied only to violations of generic solicitation laws.”) (citing *Coronado-Durazo v. INS,*123 F.3d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir.1997)).

Contrary to Magana’s contentions, the BIA did not engage in improper fact-finding under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), or violate the standard of review that governs review of the IJ’s factual findings. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). The BIA’s determination that Magana’s evidence of rehabilitation was insufficient to merit cancellation of removal is a discretionary determination that we lack jurisdiction to review. *See Mejia v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that the BIA’s consideration of alien’s rehabilitation falls within its discretionary authority and is not subject to review).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEE SCHWENK,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 104 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of January, 2024, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED. 

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1925

LLOYD JUNIOR MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; INS DISTRICT DIRECTOR; LESLIE S. TURNER, A. D. C.; LINDA DOMINQUEZ, A. D. C.; JILL H. DUFRESNE, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1675-S) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Junior Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lloyd Junior Maxwell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Maxwell v. United States Dep’t of Justice , No. CA-02-1675-S (D. Md. June 26, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### PEOPLE ex rel. ALLEN, Appellant, v. BINGHAM, Com’r, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of James A. Allen, against Theodore A. Bingham, as commissioner. J. A. Allen, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The cooperative agreement applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the cooperative agreement applications, the disclosure of which would                           ( print page 42869)                        constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Review.                    

*Date:*                         September 9, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-0813,                         *henriquv@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 30, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-16668 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Naclerio Contracting Co., Inc., Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Tompkins, J.), entered June 5, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration to the extent of staying the action and compelling plaintiff to submit all allegations of the complaint for arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract and *464CPLR 7503, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the complaint reinstated and the motion to compel arbitration is denied, without costs.

Plaintiff entered into a standard-form construction contract with the city’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) through public bidding in February 1980. The contract provided for the construction of a sewer on East 33rd Street from 1st to 2nd Avenues in Manhattan. Due to water main and flooding problems, completion of the construction was delayed. Plaintiff requested issuance of change orders from DEP for additional moneys which were needed as a result of the delays. A change order was issued; however, it was for an amount less than was requested. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action for, *inter alia,*delay damages. The city moved to compel arbitration. Special Term granted the motion. We reverse.

Special Term upheld the city’s contention that article 32 of the contract is a broad arbitration clause which gives the DEP Commissioner the power to act as arbitrator in disputes such as this. Article 32 provides, in part, that the Commissioner "shall have the power: (1) To review and determine any and all questions in relation to this contract and its performance”.

Nonetheless, "[i]t is settled that a party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent 'evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes.’ [Citations omitted.] The agreement must be clear, explicit and unequivocal [citations omitted] and must not depend upon implication or subtlety [citations omitted].” *(Matter of Waldron [Goddess],*61 NY2d 181, 183-184.) This standard-form contract does not contain language which demonstrates any intention by the parties to utilize arbitration or any other alternative dispute resolution method. *(See, e.g.,*Coulson, Business Arbitration—What You Need to Know, at 43-58 [2d ed 1982].) Neither the word "arbitration” nor "arbitrator” is mentioned in the contract. Absent an explicit agreement to arbitrate, there are no grounds on which to compel arbitration in this matter. *(Lovisa Constr. Co. v Morse Diesel,*Sup Ct, NY County, Sept. 12, 1984, Wilk, J., *affd without opn sub nom. Lovisa Constr. Co. v City of New York,*116 AD2d 1047.) Additionally, it is contrary to both general principles of law and public policy to allow a party to a contract to serve as the arbitrator in matters disputed under that same contract. *465
      *(Matter of Cross & Brown Co. [Nelson],*4 AD2d 501, 503.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Fein and Kassal, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Julian Michael G. and Others, Infants. Jeannette G., Appellant; Saint Dominic’s Home et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 346]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle E Roberts, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2011, which denied respondent mother’s motion to vacate dispositional orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 19, 2010 and September 8, 2010, which, upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she had permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to present a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and she failed to present a meritorious defense to the allegations of permanent neglect *(see Matter of Evan Matthew A. [Jocelyn Yvette A.],*91 AD3d 538, 539 [2012]). Respondent’s purported excuses of depression and eviction were properly rejected, since she failed to provide any documentation to substantiate her claims. She also did not explain why she was unable to contact the court or her attorney to advise of her inability to attend the hearings or to learn of the status of the pending proceedings *574
      *(id.).*Respondent’s partial compliance with the requisite service plan was insufficient to establish a meritorious defense *(see Matter of Shavenon N. [Miledy L.N.],*71 AD3d 401, 402 [2010]; *Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.],*91 AD3d 874, 875 [2012]). Indeed, respondent failed to complete drug treatment and anger management programs, and she failed to obtain domestic violence counseling and individual therapy *(see Matter of Simon J.,*40 AD3d 317, 318 [2007]). A preponderance of the evidence also established that it was in the subject children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights so as to free the children for adoption by their respective foster parents *(id.).*Concur — Tom, J.P., Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter R., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), rendered March 20, 1984, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that one cannot attempt to commit *674robbery in the second degree as defined in Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (a) *(see,*Penal Law § 110.00) because physical injury to a nonparticipant, an element of robbery in the second degree under Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (a), need not be intentional. He argues that one cannot attempt to commit an unintentional act.

Although there was no requirement that defendant intended to cause injury, it was necessary to establish defendant’s intent to forcibly steal property in order to sustain a conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 160.00).

At bar, the jury found that defendant intended to forcibly steal complainant’s shoulder bag, and in the course of the attempt, physically injured her. Accordingly, he was properly convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Furthermore, assault in the second degree is not a lesser included offense of attempted robbery in the second degree. Therefore, both convictions may stand *(see, People v Campbell,*86 AD2d 403, 405).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ryan J. Clement, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
# Official Journal L 196/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 196 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 643 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 196

English edition

Legislation

Volume 643 June 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | GUIDELINES |
| | * | Guideline (EU) 2021/889 of the European Central Bank of 6 May 2021 amending Guideline (EU) 2015/510 on the implementation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework (ECB/2021/23) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

GUIDELINES

*

Guideline (EU) 2021/889 of the European Central Bank of 6 May 2021 amending Guideline (EU) 2015/510 on the implementation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework (ECB/2021/23)

(ECB/2021/23)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.