alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021032EN.01001701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/17 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 32/12)

1.

On 21 January 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021032EN.01001701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Pamplona Capital Management LLP (‘Pamplona Capital’, United Kingdom), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Signature Foods Holding B.V. (‘Signature Foods’, the Netherlands), indirectly controlled by IK Investment Partners. |

Pamplona Capital acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Signature Foods.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Pamplona Capital: global private equity investment firm, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Signature Foods: manufacturing, producing and distributing a variety of branded and private label consumer and professional chilled and frozen food products across Northern Europe. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021032EN.01001701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021032EN.01001701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021032EN.01001701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Nowlin, Appellant.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced, when viewed most favorably to the People, was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As this court has frequently observed, "[i]t is well established that the standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether, after viewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant’s guilt of the charged crimes had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319 * * * *People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111, 1112 * * * *People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757 *[cert denied*469 US 932]; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621)” *(People v Bauer,*113 AD2d 543, 548; *People v Bigelow,*106 AD2d 448, 449). At bar, the unexplained presence of the defendant’s fingerprint found on a credit card receipt in the decedent’s vehicle together with certain inculpatory statements the defendant made in a tape-recorded conversation, provided an adequate evidentiary basis from which the jury could infer that he participated in the crimes charged *(cf. People v Gates,*24 NY2d 666, 669; *People v Gilbert,*106 AD2d 460, 461).

Moreover, we reject the defendant’s contention that the court improperly circumscribed his right to cross-examine a prosecution witness. The record discloses that any motive the witness may have had for testifying adversely to the defendant was amply presented to the jury for consideration through the defense counsel’s cross-examination *(cf. People v Baum,*114 AD2d 505).

*834Further, we find no error in the court’s admission of two black and white photographs depicting the decedent as found by the police. The pictures, which cannot be characterized as gruesome or lurid, were probative in that they complemented the People’s medical testimony which sought to establish that the condition in which the victim was left by the assailants after the robbery contributed to the heart attack which caused his death *(see, People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, 369-370, *cert denied*416 US 905; *People v Parsons,*112 AD2d 250, 251; *cf. People v Ferris,*105 AD2d 1136).

Finally, we are of the view that, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed at bar is neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Hyde,*110 AD2d 716). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lack merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RAYMOND J. CAMP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 9, 1961

Decided May 23, 1961.

*Mr. Norman Telsey*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. William Gallner,*Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. Joseph H.*Tuso, County Prosecutor, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

In November 1951 defendant entered a plea of *non vult*to an indictment for murder. He was sentenced to a term of *25*to 30 years.

In January 1959 he sought a writ of *habeas corpus*which was denied after a hearing upon the factual claims advanced. Defendant appeals from the resulting order.

Defendant asserts he did not enter the plea voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charge, and *58that the trial court accepted the plea without adequate inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea or defendant’s understanding. The evidence strongly refutes the claim.

The order is accordingly affirmed.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weintratjb, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Sohettino and HaneMAN — 7.

*For reversal*— Hone.
# L_2009348EN.01000901.xml

| 29.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 348/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 348/9

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 1295/2009

of 22 December 2009

adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Article 83a of and Annex XII to the Staff Regulations,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 13 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, on 1 September 2009, Eurostat submitted a report on the 2009 actuarial assessment of the pension scheme updating the parameters referred to in that Annex. According to this assessment, the rate of contribution required to maintain actuarial balance of the pension scheme is 11,3 % of the basic salary. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 13 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, on 1 September 2009, Eurostat submitted a report on the 2009 actuarial assessment of the pension scheme updating the parameters referred to in that Annex. According to this assessment, the rate of contribution required to maintain actuarial balance of the pension scheme is 11,3 % of the basic salary.

| (2) | In the interests of actuarial balance of the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union, the rate of contribution should therefore be adjusted to 11,3 % of the basic salary, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the interests of actuarial balance of the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union, the rate of contribution should therefore be adjusted to 11,3 % of the basic salary,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

With effect from 1 July 2009, the rate of the contribution referred to in Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations shall be 11,3 %.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 December 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. CARLGREN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

1

---
#### Kenneth Ermiger, Respondent, v Sally Gross, Appellant.

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The parties entered into a settlement agreement which permitted the filing of a confession of judgment upon defendant’s failure to comply with the agreement’s financial provisions. Plaintiff filed this confession of judgment and defendant moved to vacate. Conflicting affidavits and supporting proof having been submitted as to whether defendant breached the agreement’s financial provisions, it was error for Special Term to deny defendant’s motion without a hearing *(Ripoll v Rodriguez,*53 AD2d 638; *Mittman v Mittman,*33 AD2d 573). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Shaheen, J. — vacate judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-30262 Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR F. CALTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CR-30038)

September 22, 1997 Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Arthur F. Calton appeals his sentence for possession of child

pornography. He contends that the district court incorrectly

applied U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, the guideline applicable to trafficking

in child pornography; that it erroneously believe d it could not

depart downward from the guideline sentencing range; and that such

a departure was appropriate.

The district court’s factual finding that Calton was involvedin trafficking in c hild pornography was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Fair

, 979 F.2d 1037, 1040 ( 5th Cir. 1992). The

trafficking guideline thus was applied properly to Calton. U.S.S.G.

§ 2G2.4(c)(2).

The district court’s comments regarding downward departure

indicate that the court knew it could depart downward but chose not

to do so. We lack jurisdiction to consider Calton’s downwarddeparture contention on its merits. United States v. DiMarco , 46

F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART
#### Ex Parte Frey *et al.*

Petition for *Mandamus.*

O. Kyle, for petitioner.

The petition in this case was filed by Andrew C. Frey and others,. addressed to the Judges of the Supreme Court of Alabama, asking for a writ of *mandamus}*to the chancellor of the Northern Chancery Division, commanding him to set aside and annul a decree overruling motions and demurrers interposed by the petitioners to the bill of complaint filed in the relator’s court against the petitioners.

The rule *nisi*was denied.

Opinion

Per Curiam.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIUMAN WAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73549 

Agency No. A075-759-065 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Xiuman Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen 

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73549 

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wan’s motion to reopen as 

untimely where the motion was filed seven years after the BIA’s final order, see 

8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Wan failed to demonstrate changed country 

conditions in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number 

limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 

Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (petitioner failed to show evidence was 

“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships in Diabetes 
Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases.
    Date: October 14-15, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Thomas A. Tatham, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, 
National Institutes of Health, Room 7021, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD, 20892-5452, (301) 594-3993, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e7a6f7a666f637a4e636f67622060676620696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="add9ccd9c5ccc0d9edc0ccc4c183c3c4c583cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 10, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19935 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(October 27, 1987)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Samuels, Appellant.

The appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerome Reinstein, J.), rendered March 27, 1984, pursuant to which defendant Robert Samuels was convicted after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) and reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of *IVi*to 15 years and 314 to 7 years, is held in abeyance, pending determination on remand of defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30.

Defendant was charged with the offenses for which he was eventually tried by two indictments filed on January 12, 1982 and February 17, 1982, respectively. Defendant was arraigned upon the first of these indictments on January 28, 1982, and upon the second on May 5, 1982. His trial did not commence until February 1984.

*589Before proceeding to trial defendant, maintaining that he had been denied a speedy trial, filed two *pro se*motions to dismiss the indictments pursuant to CPL 30.30. The motions were not disposed of. Rather, defendant was ordered to trial with the understanding that the motions might be pursued when defendant managed to obtain minutes of prior proceedings in the case necessary to support his speedy trial claim.

During the trial, the court asked the defendant whether he adopted the *pro se*motions which had apparently been prepared by a fellow inmate at the facility where he was detained. The court indicated that the motions would not be entertained unless adopted by the defendant who was represented by an attorney. There is no response to the court’s query discernible in the record. It is, however, clear that defendant’s trial counsel concurred fully in his client’s desire to bring a speedy trial motion and, as the court acknowledged at sentencing, did adopt defendant’s pretrial *pro se*motions pro forma pending his acquisition of the necessary minutes to assess the validity of defendant’s speedy trial claim. The sentencing court further recognized that defendant might still pursue his speedy trial motion stating expressly with regard thereto: "I reserve your right to make that motion.”

It is clear that defendant never waived or abandoned his right to challenge the indictment on speedy trial grounds. It is, moreover, clear that his speedy trial motion should have been duly dealt with and decided. We note that the record discloses on its face an extended and presently unexplained delay in bringing this matter to trial, and that this delay may have prejudiced defendant’s efforts to secure witnesses to testify in his behalf.

Accordingly, the appeal is held in abeyance pending adjudication of defendant’s CPL 30.30 speedy trial motion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Sullivan and Kassal, JJ.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 19, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00385

- CR

John D. Ferrara , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BY RNE, JUSTICES TRIA NA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the trial cour t ’ s denial of appellant ’ s Motion to Quash information.

Hav ing reviewed t he record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal

.

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. The appellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court bel ow.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2206 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require 

recipients of State Homeland Security Grant Program 

funding to preserve and strengthen interoperable emergency communications capabilities, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 2206 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Wide Interoper3 able Communications Enhancement Act’’ or the ‘‘SWIC 

4 Enhancement Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MINIMUM CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR CER6 TAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 2004(b) 

8 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605(b)) 

9 is amended by— 

10 (1) redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 

11 subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and 

12 (2) inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol13 lowing new subparagraph: 

14 ‘‘(B)(i) certification that the Governor of 

15 the State has designated a Statewide Interoper16 ability Coordinator, including identification in 

17 such certification of the individual so des18 ignated, who shall be responsible for— 

19 ‘‘(I) coordinating the daily operations 

20 of the State’s interoperability efforts; 

21 ‘‘(II) coordinating State interoper22 ability and communications projects and 

23 grant applications for such projects; 

24 ‘‘(III) establishing and maintaining 

25 working groups to develop and implement 

26 key interoperability initiatives; and 
3 

•HR 2206 EH

1 ‘‘(IV) coordinating and updating, as 

2 necessary, a Statewide Communications 

3 Interoperability Plan that specifies the cur4 rent status of State efforts to enhance 

5 communications interoperability within the 

6 State, including progress, modifications, or 

7 setbacks, and future goals for communica8 tions interoperability among emergency re9 sponse agencies in the State; or 

10 ‘‘(ii) if a Statewide Interoperability Coordi11 nator has not been designated in accordance 

12 with clause (i)— 

13 ‘‘(I) certification that the State is per14 forming in another manner the functions 

15 described in subclauses (I) through (IV) of 

16 such clause; and 

17 ‘‘(II) identification in such certifi18 cation of an individual who has been des19 ignated by the State as the primary point 

20 of contact for performance of such func21 tions;’’. 

22 (b) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.—The amendment 

23 made by subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 

24 grant for which an application was submitted under the 
4 

•HR 2206 EH

1 State Homeland Security Grant Program before the date 

2 of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 27, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2206 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 

tions capabilities, and for other purposes. strengthen interoperable emergency communicaGrant Program funding to preserve and require recipients of State Homeland Security
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 22, 2017

p0315 

# Order

Clerk March 22, 2017

154925

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154925

COA: 326930

Wayne CC: 14

- 010443

- FC

JARELL ANTONIO HOUGH,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 18, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.