alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021301EN.01000101.xml

| 28.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.10188 — Illumina/GRAIL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 301/01)

On 22 July 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

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

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.10188 — Illumina/GRAIL, to the following 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’).

---
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 29, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50424 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL OROPEZA-ANGELES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-544-1-AML

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Oropeza-Angeles (Oropeza) appeals from his 48-month sentence and conviction following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b). Oropeza’s brief can be construed as challenging, for the first time on appeal, the district court’s mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), an argument that has been termed “Fanfan error.” United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir.2

2005). Fanfan error meets the first two prongs of the plain error analysis. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). Because Oropeza has failed to demonstrate that the error affected the outcome in the district court, his claim of Fanfan error does not warrant relief. See id. at 733-34. Oropeza’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Oropeza contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Oropeza concedes that his argument appears to be foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but he also argues, for the first time on appeal, that Almendarez-Torres is distinguishable because the Supreme Court in Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 487-88, limited its holding in Almendarez-Torres to cases in which the defendant specifically admitted the predicate felony used to enhance his sentence. He also argues, for the first time on appeal, that he did not admit to the prior felony conviction and that the evidence was insufficient at sentencing to support his enhanced sentence under § 1326(b).3

Apprendi did not limit Almendarez-Torres ’s holding to cases in which the defendant admits having committed the predicate felony prior to pleading guilty. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 487-90. Oropeza has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED.
# C_2021483EN.01001801.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 483/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 483/18

---

Annual Report 2020

(2021/C 483/12)

On 17 November 2021, the European Ombudsman presented her Annual Report for the year 2020 to the President of the European Parliament.

The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman’s website in all 24 official languages at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/activities/annualreports.faces

---
Exhibit 32.1

Dover Motorsports, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dover Motorsports, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Denis McGlynn, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 6, 2007



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Denis McGlynn                              
|Denis McGlynn                                  
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in
such a filing.
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Edgewater Technology, Inc. as of December 31, 2006. Edgewater Technology, Inc. owns one hundred percent (100%) of the issued and outstanding shares of each of the following subsidiaries.



|                                                                          |  |                           
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Subsidiary                                                                |  | State or Country of Origin
|                                                                          | 
|Edgewater Technology (Delaware), Inc.                                     |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                                                          | 
|Edgewater Technology (Europe) Limited                                     |  | United Kingdom            
|                                                                          | 
|Edgewater Technology Securities Corp.                                     |  | Massachusetts, USA        
|                                                                          | 
|Edgewater Technology-Ranzal, Inc.                                         |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                                                          | 
|Edgewater New York Metro, Inc. (formerly National Decision Systems, Inc.) |  | New Jersey, USA
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 3, 2010

s1124 

# Order

December 3, 2010

141316

KEVIN DUNN, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141316 COA: 291254 Wayne CC: 07-732258-NI OFFICER B. MATATALL and SGT. LAWRENCE PORTER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY



### , J., would grant leave to appeal.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14885

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-01495-KOB

LUTISHA IRENE BUSH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

COMMISSIONER, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(April 30, 2019)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-14885 Date Filed: 04/30/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Lutisha Bush appeals a decision affirming the denial of her application for 

supplemental security income. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Bush argues that 

the administrative law judge gave insufficient weight to the opinion of her

examining psychologist that she was mentally disabled. We affirm.

The administrative law judge was entitled to give limited weight to the 

opinion of Dr. Ashley Hampton. The administrative law judge correctly 

disregarded Dr. Hampton’s opinion that Bush was unable to work because that 

determination rests with the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1). And, as 

the administrative law judge explained in her decision, see Winschel v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011), Dr. Hampton, who examined 

Bush once regarding her application for disability, see 42 U.S.C. § 404.1527(2)(i)–

(ii), offered an opinion that was internally inconsistent, see id. § 404.1527(c)(4),

and conflicted with evidence in the record. Dr. Hampton opined that Bush might 

encounter problems interacting with coworkers, supervisors, and the public, yet Dr. 

Hampton recorded that Bush was cordial, polite, and affable. Dr. Hampton also 

opined that Bush would have difficulty concentrating, yet that opinion conflicted 

with the doctor’s notes that Bush was alert and focused well and with a report in 

September 2015 from a physician at CED Mental Health Center that Bush’s 

attention and concentration were adequate. But notwithstanding those 

shortcomings, the administrative law judge considered Dr. Hampton’s opinions 

Case: 18-14885 Date Filed: 04/30/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

that Bush had problems with attentiveness and mood in determining that she had 

moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace. The weight given to 

Dr. Hampton’s opinion distinguishes Bush’s case from Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d 

335 (7th Cir. 1995), where the administrative law judge disregarded undisputed

testimony from a court-appointed psychiatrist about “the date of onset of [the 

applicant’s] disabling depression.” Id. at 337. And Bush does not dispute that 

substantial evidence supports the decision that she is not disabled.

We AFFIRM the denial of Bush’s application for benefits.

Case: 18-14885 Date Filed: 04/30/2019 Page: 3 of 3
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**Statement of Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerRegarding Periodic Reports Filed Under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934**

** **

Theundersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Medicsight,Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:

 

1.             This statement is being filedpursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.

 

2.             This statement accompanies theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September30, 2002 (the “Quarterly Report”), which contains unaudited financialstatements of the Company for such fiscal quarter.

 

3.             The Quarterly Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Thisstatement has been signed by the following person in the capacities indicatedon November 11, 2002.

 

 
|   | By:                                                                | /s/ STEFAN  ALLESCH-TAYLOR |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | Stefan Allesch-Taylor                                              |
|   | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
**CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Emeritus Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Daniel
R. Baty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 
 1.
    The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 2.
    The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.
 
 
 /s/
      Daniel R. BatyDaniel
      R. BatyChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      12, 2005
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-38491, Form S-3 No. 333-39379 and Form S-8 No. 333-35975) of
Halter Marine Group, Inc. of our report dated May 12, 1999 (except for Note 17,
as to which the date is June 1, 1999), with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Halter Marine Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1999.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
June 25, 1999
| (1) | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 theCompany. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      April 29, 2009                  |   |                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                                      |
|                                       |   |                                                      |
|                                       |   |                                                      |
|                                       |   |                                                      |
|        /s/  Thomas X. Geisel     |   |        /s/  Dan A. Chila                        |
| Thomas      X. Geisel                      |   | Dan      A. Chila                                         |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                       |   |                                                      |

----
<PAGE>   1



                                                                  EXHIBIT 11(ii)

                           EAGLE USA AIRFREIGHT, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (UNAUDITED)
              (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AND FOOTNOTE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           JUNE 30,
                                                                        1998       1997
                                                                      -------     -------
<S>                                                                   <C>         <C>    
Net income                                                            $ 5,645     $ 4,104

Shares used in basic calculation:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                                  19,008      17,906
                                                                      -------     -------
         Total basic shares                                            19,008      17,906

Additional shares for diluted computation:
   Effect of stock options (1)                                            666         767
                                                                      -------     -------
         Total diluted shares                                          19,674      18,673
                                                                      =======     =======

Basic earnings per share                                              $  0.30     $  0.23
                                                                      =======     =======

Diluted earnings per share                                            $  0.29     $  0.22
                                                                      =======     =======
</TABLE>

-------------
(1)      For the three months ended June 30, 1998, calculated assuming exercise
         of options for 3,019,153 shares of common stock at prices ranging from
         $1.25 to $35.13 per share and assumed repurchase of shares at the
         average market price of $31.74. For the three months ended June 30,
         1997, calculated assuming exercise of options for 2,319,270 shares of
         common stock at prices ranging from $1.25 to $30.63 per share and
         assumed repurchase of shares at the average market price per share of
         $23.49.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 620 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2263 

[Report No. 114–797] 

To rename the Office of Space Commerce and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2263 RH

A BILL 

To rename the Office of Space Commerce and for other 

purposes. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2263 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Office of Space Com5 merce Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RENAMING OF OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCIALIZA7 TION. 

8 (a) CHAPTER HEADING.— 

9 (1) AMENDMENT.—The chapter heading for 

10 chapter 507 of title 51, United States Code, is 

11 amended by striking ‘‘COMMERCIALIZA12 TION’’ and inserting ‘‘Commerce’’. 

13 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item re14 lating to chapter 507 in the table chapters for title 

15 51, United States Code, is amended by striking 

16 ‘‘Commercialization’’ and inserting ‘‘Commerce’’. 

17 (b) DEFINITION OF OFFICE.—Section 50701 of title 

18 51, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Commer19 cialization’’ and inserting ‘‘Commerce’’. 

20 (c) RENAMING.—Section 50702(a) of title 51, United 

21 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Commercialization’’ 

22 and inserting ‘‘Commerce’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 2263 RH

1 SEC. 3. FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE. 

2 Section 50702(c) of title 51, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘Commerce.’’ and inserting ‘‘Com4 merce, including to— 

5 ‘‘(1) foster the conditions for the economic 

6 growth and technological advancement of the United 

7 States space commerce industry; 

8 ‘‘(2) coordinate space commerce policy issues 

9 and actions within the Department of Commerce; 

10 ‘‘(3) represent the Department of Commerce in 

11 the development of United States policies and in ne12 gotiations with foreign countries to promote United 

13 States space commerce; 

14 ‘‘(4) promote the advancement of United States 

15 geospatial technologies related to space commerce, in 

16 cooperation with relevant interagency working 

17 groups; and 

18 ‘‘(5) provide support to Federal Government or19 ganizations working on Space-Based Positioning 

20 Navigation, and Timing policy, including the Na21 tional Coordination Office for Space-Based Position, 

22 Navigation, and Timing.’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 620 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2263 

[Report No. 114–797] 

A BILL 

To rename the Office of Space Commerce and for 

other purposes. 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS