alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004065EN.01020501.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/205 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/205

---

(2004/C 65 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2730/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with European legislation in connection with the privatisation of VOEST in Austria

Subject:

Media reports suggest that agreements exist between individual interested parties in connection with the imminent privatisation of VOEST via the stock exchange. The Austrian newspaper ‘Der Standard’ reported on 1 September 2003 an alleged ‘secret meeting’ between existing Austrian VOEST shareholders for the purpose of allocating amongst themselves the maximum possible stockholding when the shares are sold. Those invited to this meeting are said to include the managing committee of the Vienna stock exchange, banking representatives, a member of the VOEST management board, a member of the VOEST works council and politicians from Upper Austria.

Are such internal agreements in the run-up to the privatisation of a public-sector undertaking via the stock exchange in conformity with European law?

If not, what countermeasures will the Commission be taking?

Does EU law contain provisions preventing the disposal of a public sector undertaking at less than its value and hence to the detriment of the public interest?

Does a general legal framework exist at EU level that compels Austria to privatise VOEST or other public-sector undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

(23 October 2003)

The Commission does not have enough information at its disposal to offer the Honourable Member a satisfactory answer. In the absence of details and established facts which would enable the Commission to carry out the necessary investigation into possible breaches of Community stock exchange law or Community competition law, the Commission regrets that it is unable at the moment to reply to the first and third questions. It therefore asks the Honourable Member to provide it with whatever information he has on this matter.

The Commission cannot answer the second question while the first question remains unanswered.

With regard to the fourth question, Article 295 of the EC Treaty gives the Member States the option of determining whether a given undertaking should belong to the public sector or the private sector.

---
#### In the Matter of David Elliott, Respondent, v Walter Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

—Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting the petition. On this record, the written misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence in support of the disciplinary charges levied and the penalty imposed *(People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130; *see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot,*67 NY2d 615). We also find that the use of a form petition, prepared and sworn to by petitioner’s counsel and containing no supporting factual allegations, fails to comply with the requirements of the CPLR and is facially deficient *(Matter of Dennehy v Coughlin,*116 AD2d 1001). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—art 78.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
Abatement Order filed August 18, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00342-CR

____________

JOHN WAYNE BATES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 90-CR-0288

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant is not represented by counsel on appeal. Appellant has requested 

appointment of counsel. Appellant is appealing from the denial of his motion for 

DNA testing. Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel unless reasonable 

grounds exist for the filing of the motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See Ex 

parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 891–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The clerk’s 

record filed with this court does not reflect whether the trial court has made a finding 
with regard to whether reasonable grounds exist for the filing of appellant’s motion.

Accordingly, we enter the following order. 

We ORDER the judge of the 212th District Court to determine whether 

reasonable grounds exist for the filing of the motion for post-conviction DNA 

testing, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to appointed 

counsel. The judge shall appoint appellate counsel for appellant, if necessary. The 

judge shall make a finding as to whether reasonable grounds exist for the filing of 

appellant’s motion. The judge shall direct the trial court clerk to record that finding 

in a supplemental clerk’s record, and file that record with the clerk of this court 

within 30 days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also 

consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the 

court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7760

MILFORD WASHINGTON, a/k/a Tessuma Nuballa,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL R. REED; PATRICK GURNEY; LOUIS CEI; DANIEL MAHON; 

DAVID ROBINSON; MS. TAYLOR; MS. BEST,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00644-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milford Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Milford Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order ruling on several discovery and miscellaneous motions, and 

has filed a motion to remand. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–46 (1949). The order Washington 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny the 

motion to remand and dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 275 Filed: 02/02/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:3838
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 275 Filed: 02/02/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:3839
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 275 Filed: 02/02/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3840
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 275 Filed: 02/02/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:3841
Exhibit 12.1

<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
                        U.S. RESTAURANT PROPERTIES, INC.
   RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)


                                        Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended
                                     --------------------------  --------------------------
                                       6/30/99       6/30/98        6/30/99      6/30/98
                                     ------------  ------------  -------------  -----------

<S>                                  <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
Net Income                            $   3,693     $   4,862     $   6,203      $  9,266

Fixed Charges:
  Interest Expense                        7,401         3,871        14,140         7,132
  Capitalized Interest                      428            --           733            --
  Preferred Dividend Requirements         1,775         1,776         3,551         3,551
                                     ------------  ------------  -------------  -----------
Total Fixed Charges and Preferred
  Stock Dividends                         9,604         5,647        18,424        10,683

Less Preferred Stock Dividend
  Requirements                            1,775         1,776         3,551         3,551
                                     ------------  ------------  -------------  -----------
ings                                  $  11,522     $   8,733     $  21,076      $ 16,398
                                     ============  ============  =============  ===========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        1.47x(1)      2.26x         1.42x(1)      2.30x
Ratio of Earnings to Combined
  Fixed Charges and Preferred
  Stock Dividends                         1.20x(1)      1.55x         1.14x(1)      1.53x
</TABLE>

              (1) During the three and six month period ended June 30, 1999, the
                  Company  recorded  a  non-cash,  unusual  charge of $2,092 and
                  $4,642, respectively,  relating to contingent OP units accrued
                  according to the 1997 termination of the management  contract.
                  Excluding  the effects of this  unusual  charge,  the ratio of
                  earnings  to  fixed  charges  and the  ratio  of  earnings  to
                  combined  fixed  charges and  preferred  stock would have been
                  1.74x and 1.42x,  respectively for the three months ended June
                  30, 1999 and 1.73x and 1.40x,  respectively for the six months
                  ended June 30, 1999.
#### Reginald WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-30628

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 2011.

*834Reginald Williams, Kinder, LA, pro se.

Andrew Milton Pickett, Assistant District Attorney, Battle Bell, IV, District Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Resp ondent-App ellee.

Before JONES, Chief Judge and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reginald Williams, Louisiana prisoner #94495, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for second-degree kidnapping. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue whether Williams’s claim that the state appeals court violated his due process rights by affirming his conviction under a different subsection of the kidnapping statute than that alleged in the bill of information was procedurally barred. Williams does not identify any error in the district court’s dismissal of his claim as procedurally barred. Accordingly, he has waived the issue. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Even if he did not waive the issue, he has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his claim as procedurally barred. The state district court dismissed his state habeas application raising the claim as untimely; the state appeals court and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his writ applications, citing La.Code Crim. P. arts. 930.8 and 930.4(A). This court has recognized a dismissal as untimely under Article 930.8 as an independent and adequate state procedural bar. *See Glover v. Cain,*128 F.3d 900, 902 (5th Cir.1997). Williams did not show cause for his failure to raise the claim or prejudice. *See Smith v. Johnson,*216 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir.2000). Williams has also failed to show that a miscarriage of justice as he had not made a persuasive showing that as a factual matter he did not commit the second degree kidnapping crime for which he was convicted. *See Finley v. Johnson,*243 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir.2001). Therefore, Williams has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his claim as procedurally barred. *See Parr v. Quarterman,*472 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Paul Gothard, Chief Financial Officer of Medicsight, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to
the best of my knowledge:

|              |  | By:                                            | /s/PAUL GOTHARD
|------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------- | ---------------
|              |  | Paul Gothard
          Chief Financial Officer
|April 8, 2004 |  |                                                |                

2

---

QuickLinks
Case: 1:03-cv-05733 Document #: 76 Filed: 07/22/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:335
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH CRISTOPHER YOUNG, aka

Joseph Christopher Young,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70949

Agency No. A035-029-889

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel

opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Bybee did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

FILED

JUL 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16906]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-61, OMB Control No. 3235-0073]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form S-3

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget request for extension of the previously approved collection 
of information discussed below.
    Form S-3 (17 CFR 239.13) is used by issuers to register securities 
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form S-
3 provides investors with material information to make investment 
decisions regarding securities offered to the public. Form S-3 takes 
approximately 467.4195 hours per response and is filed by approximately 
1,647 issuers annually. We estimate that 25% of the 647.4195 hours per 
response (116.8548 hours) is prepared by the issuer for a total annual 
reporting burden of 192,460 hours (116.8548 hours per response x 1,647 
responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, 
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by 
sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc8c8e9d8391bdb5b0beb3a49cafb9bff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a2a283b25371b13161815023a091f19541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 4, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16906 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1333

AN ACT

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of

1965 to allow national park units that cannot charge

an entrance or admission fee to retain other fees and

charges.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1333 ES

1 SECTION 1. USE OF CERTAIN RECREATIONAL FEES.

2 Section 4(i)(1) of the Land and Water Conservation

3 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(1)) is amended

4 by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(C) UNITS AT WHICH ENTRANCE FEES

6 OR ADMISSIONS FEES CANNOT BE COL7 LECTED.—

8 ‘‘(i) WITHHOLDING OF AMOUNTS.—

9 Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), section

10 315(c) of section 101(c) of the Omnibus

11 Consolidated Recessions and Appropria12 tions Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a

13 note; Public Law 104–134), or section 107

14 of the Department of the Interior and Re15 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998

16 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a note; Public Law 105–

17 83), the Secretary of the Interior shall

18 withhold from the special account under

19 subparagraph (A) 100 percent of the fees

20 and charges collected in connection with

21 any unit of the National Park System at

22 which entrance fees or admission fees can23 not be collected by reason of deed restric24 tions.

25 ‘‘(ii) USE OF AMOUNTS.—Amounts

26 withheld under clause (i) shall be retained
3

S 1333 ES

1 by the Secretary and shall be available,

2 without further Act of appropriation, for

3 expenditure by the Secretary for the unit

4 with respect to which the amounts were

5 collected for the purposes of enhancing the

6 quality of the visitor experience, protection

7 of resources, repair and maintenance, in8 terpretation, signage, habitat or facility en9 hancement, resource preservation, annual

10 operation (including fee collection), mainte11 nance, and law enforcement.’’.

Passed the Senate October 2, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1333

AN ACT

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund

tain other fees and charges.cannot charge an entrance or admission fee to reAct of 1965 to allow national park units that
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1177
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:1178
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:1179
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:1180
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:1181
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:1182
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:1183
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:1184
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:1185
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:1186
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:1187
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:1188
Case: 1:00-cv-06676 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/12/05 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:1189
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Duhs, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 912] —

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated August 25, 2009 *{People v Duhs,*65 AD3d 699 [2009], *affd*16 NY3d 405 [2011]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered June 13, 2007.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40882-40883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16103]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to

[[Page 40883]]

the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification 
Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: July 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
July 12, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 199 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2021-111, CP2021-113.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-16103 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P