alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40430 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT EARL SEGEADA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CR-119

- - - - - - - - - -

November 30, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Earl Segeada appeals his conviction for being a felon

in the unlawful possession in a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Segeada maintains that the district court

erroneously refused to give a requested jury instruction and that

§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Our review of the briefs and

record reveals no reversible error; we AFFIRM.
#### Patricia Nonnon, Individually and as Executrix of Kerri Nonnon, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (And Other Actions.)

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

Motion by Marcia Angelí et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted. Two copies of the brief may be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE EXPERTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,843
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                       870
<INVENTORY>                                      5,567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,496
<PP&E>                                          18,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,739
<BONDS>                                          4,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           121
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,398
<SALES>                                         85,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,184
<CGS>                                           61,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021251EN.01002801.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/28

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10231 — AerCap/GECAS/SES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 251/10)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | AerCap Holdings N.V. (‘AerCap’, The Netherlands), |
| --- | --- |

—

AerCap Holdings N.V. (‘AerCap’, The Netherlands),

| — | GE Capital Aviation Services (‘GECAS’, US), belonging to the GE group, |
| --- | --- |

—

GE Capital Aviation Services (‘GECAS’, US), belonging to the GE group,

| — | Shannon Engine Support Limited (‘SES’, Ireland), jointly controlled by GE and Safran Aircraft Engines. |
| --- | --- |

—

Shannon Engine Support Limited (‘SES’, Ireland), jointly controlled by GE and Safran Aircraft Engines.

AerCap acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of GECAS and within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over SES.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

2.

| — | AerCap: active primarily in the leasing of commercial aircraft, on a worldwide basis. AerCap also sells used aircraft and provides incidental services to its global aircraft trading activities, |
| --- | --- |

—

AerCap: active primarily in the leasing of commercial aircraft, on a worldwide basis. AerCap also sells used aircraft and provides incidental services to its global aircraft trading activities,

| — | GECAS: active in the commercial aircraft leasing and financial industry, offering a broad array of leasing and financing products and services for commercial aircraft, turboprops, engines, helicopters and materials on a worldwide basis, |
| --- | --- |

—

GECAS: active in the commercial aircraft leasing and financial industry, offering a broad array of leasing and financing products and services for commercial aircraft, turboprops, engines, helicopters and materials on a worldwide basis,

| — | SES: active in aircraft engine leasing on a worldwide basis. |
| --- | --- |

—

SES: active in aircraft engine leasing on a worldwide basis.

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.

4.

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

M.10231 — AerCap/GECAS/SES

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 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
# C_2021473EN.01002901.xml

| 24.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 473/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 473/29

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10475 – United Group / Wind Hellas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 473/11)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | United Group B.V. (‘United Group’, Netherlands), |
| --- | --- |

—

United Group B.V. (‘United Group’, Netherlands),

| — | Wind Hellas (‘Wind’, Greece). |
| --- | --- |

—

Wind Hellas (‘Wind’, Greece).

United Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Wind.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for United Group: the provision of telecom and media services in South East Europe. Since November 2020, United Group is active in Greece and Cyprus via its wholly-owned subsidiary Nova Telecommunication S.M.S.A. (previously Forthnet), a telecommunications operator that provides fixed telephony and fixed broadband services in Greece and pay-TV services in Greece and Cyprus. United Group is ultimately solely controlled by BC Partners LLP, an equity global investment firm; |
| --- | --- |

—

for United Group: the provision of telecom and media services in South East Europe. Since November 2020, United Group is active in Greece and Cyprus via its wholly-owned subsidiary Nova Telecommunication S.M.S.A. (previously Forthnet), a telecommunications operator that provides fixed telephony and fixed broadband services in Greece and pay-TV services in Greece and Cyprus. United Group is ultimately solely controlled by BC Partners LLP, an equity global investment firm;

| — | for Wind: provision of mobile, fixed and Internet services as well as, marginally, retail pay-TV services, in Greece. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Wind: provision of mobile, fixed and Internet services as well as, marginally, retail pay-TV services, in Greece.

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.

4.

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

M.10475 – United Group / Wind Hellas

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 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,567,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,718,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,510,000
<PP&E>                                       7,817,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 273,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,083,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,251,000
<BONDS>                                     71,539,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,917,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,083,000
<SALES>                                      4,816,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,816,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,694,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,555,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,866,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,299,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   522,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,821,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,821,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.48)


</TABLE>
#### WHELEN v. HALCOMB.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

John M. Gardner, for appellant.

John Delahunty, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

The plaintiff’s alleged cause was for services as a dressmaker, and for materials used in making dresses for defendant’s wife, at his request, between September, 1894, and January, 1896, and the account between plaintiff and defendant, marked in evidence by defendant’s consent, shows that between said dates he was charged with twenty-six items for dressmaking for his wife, aggregating $1,377.29, and was credited with twelve payments on account thereof, aggregating $707, leaving an unpaid balance of $670.29. It is in proof, and defendant admits, that he was willing that his wife should order dresses, for which he was originally liable to plaintiff, down to and including the items charged in the account in July, 1895, but that defendant then gave notice to the plaintiff that she must not do any worn—dressmaking—for his wife on his account. So defendant, conceding his liability for items so charged, made dispute at trial as to the items charged on the account subsequent to .Tulv. and those subsequent items were for three dresses made for his wife, and for certain repairing and altering of dresses for her. The plaintiff admitted that defendant had then instructed her not to furnish anything more to his wife except upon his authority, and she testifies that the items subsequent to July were furnished upon his express request, and that he repeatedly promised to pay the balance as shown by the account; and plaintiff’s bookkeeper testified that, when she asked the defendant for payment of the balance, he said to her that he had no work, and was unable to pay her, and that he then told plaintiff, “I told you not to make my wife any more dresses,” and she said to him, ‘‘Your instructions were afterwards rescinded,” and he said, “I admit that; I like to see her well dressed, and I like to have her have nice clothes.” However, the defendant at trial denied that he had ever rescinded his instructions not to supply his wife except upon his authority, and that he had himself ordered any of the items charged. The ease was properly sent to the jury to determine the disputed questions of fact, and their verdict for plaintiff will not be set aside. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DANIEL E. GIBBS, SR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3786

[April 5, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

431991CF000381A.

Daniel E. Gibbs, Sr., Madison, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT
32.2




PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


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





In
connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended January 1, 2011 (the
“Report”), I, Aaron Tachibana, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
and for the periods indicated.





February
7, 2011




By:
              /s/ Aaron TachibanaAaron
      TachibanaChief
      Financial OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-3359

_____________ H.D.N. Child, a minor, by his mother * and next friend, A.B., on behalf of * himself and all others similarly situated; * A.B., as mother and next friend for * minor, H.D.N. Child, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Brenda Roberts, Deputy Juvenile * Officer for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,* [UNPUBLISHED] Saline County, Missouri; in her * individual and official capacities and as * representative of all juvenile officers in * the State of Missouri, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: June 11, 1997 Filed: June 23, 1997

_____________ Bef ore BOWMAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD , Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.The Ho norable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. -2- H.D .N. Child, who along with his mother was the plaintiff below, appeals th e order of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs' claims as moot. The child also appeals 1 the order of the District Court denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. Having considered the case, we con clude that the District Court's determination of mootness was correct. We further co nclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretionby denying certification of the proposed class. Accordingly, the orders of the District Court are
AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-2011

Filed March 7, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. and H.C.,

Minor Children,

D.C., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof, 

District Associate Judge.

The father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental 

rights to two of his children. AFFIRMED.

Timothy J. Tupper of Tupper Law Firm, Davenport, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Christine D. Zamora Frederick of Zamora Taylor Woods & Frederick, 

Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2

POTTERFIELD, Judge.

The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children, H.C. 

and C.C.1 The juvenile court terminated his parental rights to both children

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), and (l) (2017). The father 

does not challenge whether the statutory grounds for termination have been met, 

so we need not consider this step. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). 

Rather, he maintains termination is not in the children’s best interests because of 

the bond they share with him, and he asks for additional time to reunify with them. 

See Iowa Code §§ 232.104(2)(b), .116(2), (3)(c).

Here, the children were removed from their parents’ care in July 2016 due 

to the parents’ issues with substance abuse. At the time of removal, both children 

tested positive for drugs—including methamphetamine and cocaine—and the 

parents tested positive for methamphetamine and heroin. Though the parents 

initially participated in some services, they stopped attending all visitations 

beginning in January 2017 and had no contact with the children between that date 

and the date of the termination hearing, in November 2017. Additionally, at the 

time of the termination hearing, the father had not yet attended any substanceabuse treatment and was incarcerated.

Based on this record, we can neither say the children are so bonded to the 

father that termination is at odds with their best interests nor that an additional six 

months would alleviate the need for the children’s removal from the father’s care.

 

1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal. 
3

We affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20342]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight hereby gives 
notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of 
National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science 
Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, September 21, 2021, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's 
opening remarks; review draft NSB Overview of Merit Review Digest; 
review questions and data requests applicable to future Merit Review 
Digests; discuss priorities for Committee on Oversight efforts for the 
rest of 2021; and discuss CO oversight of the new TIP directorate.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Ann Bushmiller, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44252631372c292d28042a37226a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0d1d2c5c3d8ddd9dcf0dec3d69ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. To listen to this 
teleconference, members of the public must send an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315f5045585e5f505d425258545f5254534355715f42571f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b353a2f3234353a372838323e35383e39293f1b35283d753c342d">[email protected]</span></a> at least 24 hours prior to the 
teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters 
a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be 
found at the National Science Board website at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-20342 Filed 9-16-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Myrna F. LaBow *v.*Ronald I. LaBow

*Jeroll R. Silverberg,*in support of the motion.

Submitted July 8

decided July 16, 1975

The defendant’s motion for a review of the order of the trial court dated June 5, 1975, terminating the stay of execution resulting from the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted and the trial court is directed to file a finding, such as circumstances permit, setting forth the basis for its ultimate conclusion to terminate the stay, including any claims of law made together with its conclusions thereon.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-32703, 333-32705, 333-49530, 333-49532,
333-49540, 333-49570, and 333-62269) of TransAct Technologies Incorporated of
our report dated March 15, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial
statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10 K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Hartford, CT
March 15, 2007


                                       60