alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021030EN.01000601.xml

| 27.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2021/C 30/06)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 16 December 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 16 December 2020 – 31 December 2020 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | RJU/7DE. |
| Species | Undulate ray (raja undulata) |
| Zone | Union waters of 7d and 7e |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | --- |
| Reference number | 32/TQ123 |

Date and time of closure

16 December 2020

Duration

16 December 2020 – 31 December 2020

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

RJU/7DE.

Species

Undulate ray (raja undulata)

Zone

Union waters of 7d and 7e

Type(s) of fishing vessels

---

Reference number

32/TQ123

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6437** 

DONALD FREDERICK SAUER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. BUTCH JACKSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:13

- hc

- 02079

- F )

Submitted : August 28, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr. , LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR. , Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant
. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Frederick Sauer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district cou rt denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); se e Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Sauer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# C_2021005EN.01000701.xml

| 7.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9993 — Allianz/Noble)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 5/07)

On 21 December 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9993. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9993. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# CI2021080EN.01000101.xml

| 9.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 80/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 80/1

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2021/C 80 I/01)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 24.12.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 24.12.2020 - 31.12.2020 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SOL/07A. |
| Species | Common sole (Solea solea) |
| Zone | 7a |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | --- |
| Reference number | 35/TQ123 |

Date and time of closure

24.12.2020

Duration

24.12.2020 - 31.12.2020

Member State

Belgium

Stock or Group of stocks

SOL/07A.

Species

Common sole (Solea solea)

Zone

7a

Type(s) of fishing vessels

---

Reference number

35/TQ123

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Judicial Conduct Opinions 2021

CL-21-90256

CL-21-90257

CL-21-90258

CL-21-90259

CL-21-90260

CL-21-90261

CL-21-90262

CL-21-90263

CL-21-90264

CL-21-90265

CL-21-90266

CL-21-90267

CL-21-90268

CL-21-90269

CL-21-90270

CL-21-90271

CL-21-90272

CL-21-90273

CL-21-90274

CL-21-90275

CL-21-90276

CL-21-90277

CL-21-90278

CL-21-90279

CL-21-90280

CL-21-90281

CL-21-90282

CL-21-90283

CL-21-90284

CL-21-90285

CL-21-90286

CL-21-90287

CL-21-90288

CL-21-90289

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Dover Motorsports, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-58779) on Form S-8 of DoverMotorsports, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Dover Motorsports, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of earnings andcomprehensive earnings and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Dover Motorsports, Inc. 

Our report dated March 13, 2006, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that Dover Motorsports, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 because of the effect of a materialweakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company had inadequate management oversight and review of the accounting for income taxes in interim periods. 

KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 

March 13, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0722

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BRYAN NEIL ARVIDSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 18, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 14 2023

08/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0722
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 21.1

List of subsidiaries for NMT Medical, Inc.:

NMT Heart, Inc.
NMT Investments Corp.
Nitinol Medical Technologies FSC, Inc.
Nitinol Medical Technologies International B.V.
NMT NeuroSciences (International), Inc.
NMT NeuroSciences (US), Inc.
NMT NeuroSciences (IP), Inc.
NMT Neurosciences Holdings (UK) Limited
NMT Neurosciences Holdings B.V.
NMT Neurosciences (Belgium) SA
NMT Neurosciences Instruments B.V.
NMT NeuroSciences Holdings (France) SA
NMT Neurosciences (Hong Kong) Limited
NMT NeuroSciences GmbH
NMT Innovasive Systems, Inc.
NMT Neurosciences (Spain) SA
NMT NeuroSciences Implants (France) SA
NMT NeuroSciences Instruments (France) SARL
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1981 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1981

   To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that an 
    employee's `regular rate' for purposes of calculating overtime 
   compensation will not be affected by certain additional payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2015

 Mr. Calvert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that an 
    employee's `regular rate' for purposes of calculating overtime 
   compensation will not be affected by certain additional payments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Bonus Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULAR RATE FOR OVERTIME PURPOSES.

    Section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended--
            (1) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of 
        paragraph (3) the following: ``; or (d) the payments are made 
        to reward an employee or group of employees for meeting or 
        exceeding the productivity, quality, efficiency, or sales goals 
        as specified in a gainsharing plan, incentive bonus plan, 
        commission plan, or performance contingent bonus plan''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``A plan described in clause (d) of paragraph (3) shall be in 
writing and made available to employees, provided that the amount of 
the payments to be made under the plan be based upon a formula that is 
stated in the plan, and be established and maintained in good faith for 
the purpose of distributing to employees additional remuneration over 
and above the wages and salaries that are not dependent upon the 
existence of such plan or payments made pursuant to such plan.''.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Daniel R. Baty, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Emeritus Corporation; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
 (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
 5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 
 
 /s/ Daniel R. Baty
 Daniel R. Baty
 Chief Executive Officer
 January 27, 2005
TURQUOISE LAKE AT SUGARLOAF DAM NEAR LEADVILLE COLatitude: 39.253Longitude: -106.374Elevation: 9747

TURQUOISE LAKE AT SUGARLOAF DAM NEAR LEADVILLE CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe
# C_2021003EN.01000401.xml

| 6.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9757 — Providence/VOO/Brutélé)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 3/04)

On 30 June 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9757. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9757. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Dismiss and Opinion Filed October 29, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01357-CV IN RE WALTER CORTEZ, Relator Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07-30378-V 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Brown Opinion by Justice Francis Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamu s complaining of the actions of the trial court in dismissing or denying hi s petition for writ of habeas corpus without giving him an opportunity to amend and of the actions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in denying his petition for writ of mandamus filed in that court. The intermediate courts of appeals have no original jurisdiction over peti tions for habeas corpus relief in connection with criminal proceedings. See T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(d) (West 2004) (limiting habeas corpus jurisdiction of intermediate courts of appeals to civil matters); T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.05 (West 2005) (granting original jurisdiction in cases seeking writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases to the court of criminal appeals, districts courts, and county courts). Accordingly, they also have no mandamus jurisdiction in matters related to petitions for writ of habeas corpus. “Article 11.07 contains no role fo r the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.–2– App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). We DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

141357F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
Update on 5-year Review of Management Triggers 

for Humpback Chub

Technical Work Group Meeting

October 14, 2021

Kerri Pedersen, Bureau of Reclamation & Kirk Young, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Two Topics Related to Trigger

• Tier 1 Response

• Threshold exceeded for sub-adults

• Poor production

• Conservation actions (listed in trigger document)

• Additional HBC translocated

• Trigger review

• ≤ 5 years

• Evaluate & adjust
Management Triggers for Humpback Chub 

(Appendix O of EIS/Appendix D of BA)

• Purpose

• Identifies criteria for conservation actions & mechanical removal

• Minimizes likelihood of mechanical removal – early intervention of 

conservation actions 

• Regulatory document

• Review every 5 years

• 2021 – first update to document
Review Process

• Assembled team of GC agency biologists (FWS, Reclamation, GCMRC, 

AZGFD, NPS, Navajo Nation, Hualapai Tribe)

• Series of 3 meetings

• Solicited input from TWG on comments/concerns - existing triggers

• Team reviewed & edited document

• Meeting topics summarized in Appendix
Updates to Trigger Document

• Assessed/updated technical assumptions & conservation action 

options

• Clarity of document

• Identified topics for additional evaluation

• Western Grand Canyon - expansion drivers and resiliency of population

• Bioeconomic model – incorporate immigration & sensitivity analysis

• Predator index - concept needs to be explored and expanded
Next Steps

• Review by solicitors

• Official transmittal from Reclamation to FWS

• Distribute final version
Questions?
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00144-CV

__________________

JODI MICHAEL SIMONEAUX, Appellant

V.

GLENN A. JOHNSON, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 20-01-00860

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Jodi Michael Simoneaux, and the appellee, Glenn A. Johnson,

filed a joint motion to dismiss this accelerated appeal. This motion is voluntarily 

made by the agreement of the parties prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(2). We grant the joint motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

 
2

Submitted on September 9, 2020

Opinion Delivered September 10, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, 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 5, 2018

d0226 

# Order

Clerk March 5, 2018

155475

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155475

COA: 328331

Wayne CC: 14

- 008795

- FH

ELLIOT RIVERS, a/k/a MELVIN JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2017

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2021254EN.01000101.xml

| 29.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10282 — ICG/Infra Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 254/01)

On 18 June 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10282. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10282. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---