alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021463EN.01000301.xml

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10490 – BAIN CAPITAL / CTI / BBG HOLDING)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 463/03)

On 14 October 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10490. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10490. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Biological and 
Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC). The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be 
announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, October 21, 2021; 11:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Friday, October 22, 2021; 11:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held digitally via webcast using Zoom. 
Instructions for Zoom, as well as any updates to meeting times or 
meeting agenda, can be found on the BERAC meeting website at: https://science.osti.gov/ber/berac/Meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tristram West, Designated Federal 
Officer, BERAC, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of 
Biological and Environmental Research, SC-23/Germantown Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1290. Phone 301-903-5155; 
fax (301) 903-5051 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Committee: To provide advice on a continuing basis 
to the Department of Energy's Office of Science, Director, on the many 
complex scientific and technical issues that arise in the development 
and implementation of the Biological and Environmental Research 
Program.
    Tentative Agenda:

 News from the Office of Biological and Environmental Research
 News from the Biological Systems Science and Earth and 
Environmental Systems Sciences Divisions
 Report from the BERAC Subcommittee
 BERAC business and discussion
 Public comment

    Public Participation: The two-day meeting is open to the public. If 
you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may 
do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make 
oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, please send 
an email request to both Tristram West ([email protected]) 
and Andrew Flatness ([email protected]). You must make 
your request for an oral statement at least five business days before 
the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled 
oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will 
conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Public comment will be limited to five minutes each.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 45 days at the BERAC website: https://science.osti.gov/ber/berac/Meetings/BERAC-Minutes.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2021.
LaTanya Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-20495 Filed 9-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### BAME v. SEYKORA.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

May 8, 1894.)

Replevin—Right to Possession—Pbtma Pacie Evidence.

Where plaintiff establishes a prima facie title and right to possession, and there is no evidence as to how defendant came into possession of the chattel, plaintiff is entitled to recover.

Appeal from Schenectady county court.

Action by John H. Same against Anton Seylcora to recover the possession of a chattel. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.

*931Jacob W. Clute, for appellant.

Louis M. King, for respondent.

HERRICK, J.

An action to recover the possession of a chattel may be brought before a justice of the peace, without taking proceedings to require the replevining of the chattel before judgment. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2919, 2933, 3038; Delin v. Stohl, 2 Civ. Proc. R. 222; Guyon v. Rooney (Sup.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 99. The plaintiff established a prima facie title, and the right to the possession of the property in question, against every one except a bona fide purchaser. There is no evidence in the case to show how the defendant came into the possession of the property,—whether he stole it, took it for debt, or purchased it. Plaintiff having established a prima facie title and right to the possession of the property, it is incumbent upon the defendant to show how he came into the possession of it. The judgment of the county court should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. All concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. KENNETH WINSTON ASHFORD, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 234 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 19th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
COMBINED CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSESLatitude: 37.298Longitude: -105.763Elevation: None

COMBINED CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSES

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 11240 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Michael Robert Mims,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:22
- CR
- 13 - 1

**__________________ ____________**  Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Robert Mims has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mims has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rele vant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 31, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-11240 Document: 00516879637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2023No. 22
- 11240

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-11240 Document: 00516879637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MAURICE V. SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-93-51, CA-95-47-4-H)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice V. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court order

denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Smith, Nos. CR-93-51; CA-95-47-4-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1996). We also

deny his motion for the preparation of a transcript at Government's

expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                       REMINGTON PRODUCTS COMPANY, L.L.C.




     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that each person whose name appears below
constitutes and appoints  Alexander R. Castaldi,  and Kris J. Kelley and each of
them,  his true and  lawful  attorneys-in-fact  and  agents,  with full power of
substitution  and  resubstitution,  for and in his name, place and stead, in any
and all  capacities  which  such  person  serves or may serve  with  respect  to
Remington  Products  Company,  L.L.C.  and Remington  Capital Corp., to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Remington  Products Company,  L.L.C. and Remington
Capital  Corp.  for the fiscal  year ended  December  31,  2002,  and any or all
amendments  to such  Annual  Report,  and to file the  same,  with all  exhibits
thereto,  and other documents in connection  therewith,  with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,  granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each
of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and  necessary to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully to all
intents and  purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby  ratifying  and
confirming all that said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     This  power of  attorney  has been  signed as of the ____ day of  February,
2003, by the following persons:


-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Neil P. DeFeo,                              Robert L. Rosner, Director
Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director


-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Victor K. Kiam, III, Director               Kevin Mundt, Director


-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Norman W. Alpert, Director                  Daniel S. O'Connell, Director


-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Arthur J. Nagle, Director                   Steven M. Silver, Director


--------------------------------            ------------------------------------
William B. Connell, Director                Vernon A. Brunner, Director


--------------------------------            ------------------------------------
Stephen P. Donovan, Director                Kris J. Kelley
                                            Vice President and Controller

-----------------------------------
Alexander R. Castaldi,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
    and Administrative Officer
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Judge Victor J. Wolski (Chair)

Judge Wolski was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims by President George W. Bush on July 14, 2003 and entered duty on July 24, 2003. He is a 1984 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, receiving a B.A. in History from the College of Arts and Sciences and a B.S. in Economics from the Wharton School. Following graduation, he served as research associate to a supply-side economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and at the Institute for Political Economy. In 1988, he served in the Reagan Administration as speech writer to Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng, and in 1989 he served in the administration of President George H. W. Bush, in the General Counsel's office at the U.S. Department of Energy. Judge Wolski received his J.D. in 1991 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served as president of the Federalist Society and as a member of the editorial board of the Virginia Tax Review. In 1991-92, he served as law clerk to Judge Vaughn R. Walker on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. From 1992 to 1997 he was an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, where he was counsel of record at the petition stage in Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997). From 1997 to 2000, Judge Wolski served as tax counsel to Senator Connie Mack (R-FL), a member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance. He was General Counsel and Chief Tax Adviser to the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress in 1999 and 2000. From 2000 to 2003, Judge Wolski was an attorney with the Washington, D.C. law firms Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal and Cooper & Kirk. He is a member of the bars of the United States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia, the states of California, Washington, and Oregon, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and the Federal Circuits, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and several other federal courts. Judge Wolski and his wife are residents of Virginia.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**PERICOM
      SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 September 27, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive 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.





November
      6, 2008




/s/
                Alex C. HuiAlex
                C. HuiChief
                Executive OfficerPericom
                Semiconductor Corporation
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BARRY MARCEL VAUGHN, a/k/a Dwan Manson, a/k/a DR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00266-1; 5:13-cv-03292)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Marcel Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Barry Marcel Vaughn seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 court 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); see 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 motion states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Vaughn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Means, Appellant.

Submitted January 5, 2007;

decided February 13, 2007

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.

Judge Jones taking no part.
# C_2021352EN.01000101.xml

| 2.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10340 — Goldman Sachs/Adapteo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 352/01)

On 29 July 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 32021M10340. 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 32021M10340. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2021330DE.01001101.xml

| 17.8.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 330/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 330/11

---

Berichtigung der Schlussfolgerungen des Rates zur überarbeiteten EU-Liste nicht kooperativer Länder und Gebiete für Steuerzwecke

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 66 vom 26. Februar 2021
  )

(2021/C 330/08)

Seite 42, erste Zeile vor der Überschrift:

Anstatt:

„ANLAGE I“

muss es heißen:

„ANHANG I“.

Seite 44, erste Zeile vor der Überschrift:

Anstatt:

„ANLAGE II“

muss es heißen:

„ANHANG II“.

---
|   | 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/  Raymond R. Brandstrom |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond R. Brandstrom                                  |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                |
|   | November 9, 2009                                       |
Exhibit 32.1



PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 March 26, 2005 (the
Report), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive 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.



May 4, 2005



By:

/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
NONI JAMIL STINSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 4919

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed September 5, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela J o Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen Bonjour, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO

, WETHERELL

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.