alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19310]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Second Review)]


Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe From China

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty 
orders on certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and 
pressure pipe from China would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on February 1, 2021 (86 FR 
7740) and determined on May 7, 2021 that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (86 FR 36771, July 13, 2021).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on September 1, 2021. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5229 (September 2021), 
entitled Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 
(Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 1, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-19310 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# EUR-Lex - 32009M5619 - EN

*|*

# 32009M5619

**Commission Decision of 25/09/2009 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.5619 - BIDVEST / NOWACO GROUP) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal 237 , 02/10/2009 P. 0002 - 0002 *

|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels , 25.9.2009

SG-Greffe(2009) D/5653

C(2009) 7519

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying party:

Dear Madam/Sir,

Subject: Case No COMP/M.5619 - BIDVEST/ NOWACO GROUP Notification of 28.08.2009 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C209, 04.09.2009 p.10.

1. On 28.08.2009 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ("EC Merger Regulation") by which by which the undertaking Bidvest Group Limited ('Bidvest', South Africa) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of Nowaco Czech Republic s.r.o. and Farutex Sp.zo.o (together, 'Nowaco Group', Czech Republic/Poland) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- Bidvest: international services, trading and distribution and wholesale distribution of foodservice products.

- Nowaco Group: wholesale and independent retail distribution of foodservice products.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(c) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation.

For the Commission (signed) Philip LOWE Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005, p. 32.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,860,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,748,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,301,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    255,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         531,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (322,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,718,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,523,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,602,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,718,000
<SALES>                                     12,230,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,230,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,907,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,090,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             387,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,907,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,762,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,145,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,145,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME TAXES AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCED TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-2000       APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000       JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                 1
<CASH>                             36,053             7,338
<SECURITIES>                       49,334            63,281
<RECEIVABLES>                      96,326           114,518
<ALLOWANCES>                       (4,005)           (2,724)
<INVENTORY>                             0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  209,828           203,520
<PP&E>                             98,375            94,093
<DEPRECIATION>                     32,513            43,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    291,458           274,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              71,461            63,227
<BONDS>                                 0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                 0
<PREFERRED>                             0                 0
<COMMON>                              280               357
<OTHER-SE>                        210,722           201,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      291,458           274,104
<SALES>                            79,596            91,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   79,596            91,255
<CGS>                              60,660            56,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      55,625            38,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (1,007)             (790)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      604               116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0               221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (35,682)           (2,930)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (13,659)             (680)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (22,023)           (2,250)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                 0
<CHANGES>                               0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      (22,023)           (2,250)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.79)            (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.79)            (0.08)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report
on Form 10-Q pursuant to Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation at the dates
and for the periods indicated.





|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul C. Hudson     
|                   |  |     |  | Paul C. Hudson         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |     |  |                        
|                   |  |     |  |                        
|Date: May 14, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Samuel Sarpong     
|                   |  |     |  | Samuel Sarpong         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Morey *v.*Walker. Same *v.*White.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

July 7, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LINH THI MINH TRAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DARRYN J. KUEHL, BENJAMIN 

J. TOOPS and RYAN KERSEY, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:16-cv-00707-AC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#45) on January 5, 2017, in which he recommends 

this Court grant Defendants' Motions (#12, #19) to Dismiss 

Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend. The matter is now 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and 

Rule of C 1 Procedure 72(b). 

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation were time filed, this Court is relieved of its 

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall, 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00707-AC Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 2
561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not 

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and 

Recommendation (#45). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' 

Motions (#12, #19) to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without 

prejudice. Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 

March 3, 2017. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge 

for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~day of February, 2017. 

ANNA~ United States District Judge 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00707-AC Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ROSETTA ADAMSON, Petitioner

v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 680 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication are DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                         OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                    12,465
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              5,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                5,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          23,150
<PP&E>                                     1,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            25,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     14,046
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                      11
<OTHER-SE>                                10,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              25,123
<SALES>                                   17,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          17,641
<CGS>                                     14,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             14,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          12,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (9,583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (9,583)
<DISCONTINUED>                           (10,836)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             (20,419)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (3.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (3.54)


</TABLE>
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP

Simon Franzini, Cal. Bar #287631*

simon@dovel.com

201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600

Santa Monica, California 90401

Tel: (310) 656-7066

Fax: (310) 656-7069

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and 

on behalf of a class of others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

VISALUS, INC.,

a Nevada corporation,

 Defendant.

No. 3:15-cv-01857

Declaration of Simon Franzini in 

support of Plaintiff’s response in

opposition to Defendant’s motion to 

continue
Declaration of Simon Franzini 1

Declaration of Simon Franzini

I, Simon Franzini, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California. I have been 

admitted to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter. Dkt. 156. I am over the 

age of 18 and fully competent to make this declaration.

2. I am a partner with the law firm of Dovel & Luner, LLP and counsel of 

record for Plaintiff Wakefield. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s response 

in opposition to Defendant ViSalus, Inc.’s motion to continue trial.

3. Submitted with Plaintiff’s response are the following exhibits, which are 

true and correct copies of the documents identified below:

Exhibit no. Description

1 Email chain between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant

2 Doug Knox biography at Spencer Fane

3 Joshua Dickinson biography at Spencer Fane

I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, 

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of January 2019 in Santa 

Monica, California.

/s/ Simon Franzini

Dovel & Luner, LLP
Declaration of Simon Franzini 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Simon Franzini, an attorney, certify that on January 18, 2019, I served the foregoing by 

causing true and accurate copies of such paper to be transmitted to all counsel of record via the 

Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

/s/ Simon Franzini
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1932 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to allow employers 

a grace period to abate certain occupational health and safety violations 

before being subject to a penalty under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mrs. HARTZLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

to allow employers a grace period to abate certain occupational health and safety violations before being subject 

to a penalty under such Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GRACE PERIOD ON OSHA PENALTIES. 

4 (a) CITATIONS.—Section 10(a) of the Occupational 

5 Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 659(a)) is 

6 amended by inserting after the first sentence the fol7 lowing: ‘‘No such penalty may be assessed for a violation 

8 that is determined not to be willful, repeated, or serious 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1932 IH

1 as described in section 17(k), during the period of time 

2 fixed for abatement of the violation in the citation issued 

3 under section 9(a) or final order issued under this section, 

4 as the case may be, and no such penalty may be assessed 

5 for such a violation if such violation shall have been abated 

6 by the employer in accordance with such citation or final 

7 order before the end of such time period.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10114

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO ALBERTO CORONA-SOLORZANO, also known as

Gustavo Noe Luna-Torres,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-210-2-Y

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Mario Alberto

Corona-Solorzano concedes that the arguments raised are

foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for

further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance

in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED,

and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
# C_2009261EN.01000101.xml

| 31.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5625 — British Land/Blackstone/Broadgate Estate)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 261/01

On 16 October 2009, 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:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5625. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5625. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
October 13, 2016

Dr. Katrina Grantz, Chief, 

Adaptive Management Group 

Environmental Resources Division

Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation

125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138

Subject: Fall 206 High flow experiment, Glen Canyon Dam

Dear Katrina:

It appears the sediment requirements have been met this year for a fall high flow experiment (HFE). 

Sediment availability is the principal determinant in the feasibility of conducting a high flow experiment 

under the Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020 Environmental Assessment. The HFE Protocol 

is experimental in nature and is designed to achieve a better understanding of whether, how, and 

when to incorporate high releases into future dam operations in a manner that effectively 

conserves natural resources that are intimately connected to fine-sediment deposits. 

In considering a HFE, the Department of the Interior Glen Canyon Leadership Team (Team) for the 

HFE Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control is tasked to also consider a number of key biological 

resource effects including aquatic food base, native and nonnative fish abundance including the 

Lees Ferry trout population, and the trout fishery recreation experience quality. 

In considering a HFE this fall, the Team needs to fully consider that the Lee’s Ferry trout fishery 

continues to struggle with poor angler catch rates which are impacting local businesses and angler 

satisfaction. We believe that it is premature to conduct another fall HFE until the following

uncertainties and unresolved issues are addressed: 

(1) the impact of sequential HFEs on the character, composition, and quantity of the aquatic 

food base. An evaluation of these questions by GCMRC based current research has been 

requested and anticipated to be available for the January TWG/GCMRC Annual Science 

Reporting Meeting; 
(2) the decline in the condition of the Lee’s Ferry trout fishery coincidental with the 

implementation of the HFE Protocol and changes subsequent to the 2015 HFE hiatus in 

improvements, if any, to the fishery and food base conditions;

(3) the yet to be finished and presented comprehensive written three year review of the 

impacts of the first three sequential fall HFEs. This report was due in 2015 and remains as 

of this date in an unavailable draft form; and 

(4) the presence of green sunfish in the Lees Ferry reach, which caused the cancellation of a 

2015 fall HFE, has reappeared. Efforts are underway for control through mechanical and 

possible ammonia related treatments but have as of this date not provided a level of 

assurance of mitigation of threats to downstream native fish. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and concerns and request that they be 

shared with the members of the Team.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

John Jordan John Hamill

AMWG Representative AMWG alternate

Chris Budwig Joe Miller

TWG Representative TWG alternate

cc Technical Work Group and interested parties