alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### F. G. Edmiston v. W. H. Edwards.

If a *certiorari*be issued without bond, the proceeding would be illegal; but if there has been an effort to give bond, the court should allow the applicant to execute a sufficient bond. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 468, Note 381.)

Error from Houston. The case was tried before Hon. Betjben A. Beeves, one of the district j udges.

The first bond for *certiorari*was not conditioned as the law requires, nor was it under seal. The plaintiff was allowed to execute a new bond, tó which the defendant excepted.

*Taylor Burnett,*for appellant,

insisted that, as the original bond was void, the district court could acquire no jurisdiction, for which they cited Berry v. Martin, 6 Tex., 265.

Eo brief for appellee has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Lind'say, J.

—The only error assigned in this case which requires the notice of this court, and upon which the appel-” lant relies for a reversal, is the permission the court below gave the appellee "to file a new bond after he had quashed *173the bond executed for the obtention [obtaining?] of the writ of *certiorari*for insufficiency.

There can be no doubt that a writ of *certiorari,*issued without the execution of a bond at all, would be illegal, as the statute requires the execution of a bond as a prerequisite to the obtention [?] of the writ. But the execution of a bond, however defective it may he, is a technical compliance with the terms of the statute; and although it may he quashed for insufficiency, the court may and should grant leave to the party to execute a good and sufficient bond; and if he does it in a reasonable time, (of which the court has the discretion in judgment,) so as to afford complete protection to the rights of the adverse party, the cause should proceed as if the bond had been originally good and sufficient. Such an exercise of the discretion of the court works no prejudice to the opposite party in the trial of the case upon its merits. In Berry v. Martin, 6 Tex., 265, it was determined that, when the bond was executed with only one surety, (the statute requiring two,) the defect might be cured in the district- court. Such a bond with only one surety 'would be quashed upon motion for insufficiency. Yet the court might authorize the execution of another and a sufficient bond, and proceed with the case to trial.

We think the court did not err in granting the leave to make a new bond, and can discover no such error in the record as would warrant the disturbance of the judgment of the district *court;*and it is therefore

Aeeirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 10, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00632

- CR

EX PARTE Elliot Jerzain RAMOS

- ESTRADA

From the County Court

, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CRB000724L1 Honorable Leticia Martin ez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A ppellant’s brief is currently due on November 17 , 2022. On November 9, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting a 45

- day extension of time to file his brief. W e GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file his brief by January 2 , 202 3 . Further requests for extension s of time will be disfavored

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han d and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021446EN.01003501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 446/35 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10474 – NESTE / RAVAGO / JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 446/08)

1.

On 20 October 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021446EN.01003501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Neste Oyj (‘Neste’) (Finland), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ravago S.A. (‘Ravago’) (Luxembourg). |

This notification concerns in the acquisition of joint control by Neste and Ravago in a newly established full-function joint venture within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Neste: active in oil refining and commercialisation, focusing on low-emission, high-quality traffic fuels, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Ravago: active in the distribution of plastics, rubber and chemicals and in the production of recycled/compounded polymers, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for the JV: active in the production and sale of liquefied waste plastic. |

3.

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

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021446EN.01003501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

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

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

M.10474 – NESTE / RAVAGO / JV

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

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

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

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

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021446EN.01003501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021446EN.01003501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

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

No. 21

- 1321

EDUARDO EDWIN CERVANTES , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : December 9, 2021 Decided: March 15, 2022

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert J. Harris, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Taryn L. Arbeiter, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D

. C

. , for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eduardo Edwin Cervantes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the
i mmigration j udge ’ s (IJ ) decision denying Cervantes’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. ∗ After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) , and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief , see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)

. We agree with the IJ’s de termination that Cervantes’ proposed particular social groups are not cognizable. We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Cervantes did not establish a clear probability of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion. Lastly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Cervantes did not demons trate for protection under the CAT that he was more likely than not to be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

∗ Cervantes does not challenge the denial of asylum.
#### In the Matter of HAROLD J. FORGANG, an attorney at law.

For the order: *Mr. Frederick C. Vonhof.*

November 8, 1961.

Name of respondent stricken from roll of attorneys at law.
THE ALL-IMPORTANT E-SIGNATURE

Written By Danielle Davis 

An Electronic Signature (e-signature) authenticates or validates a 

statement of events pertaining to a boarding, inspection, or 

investigation on a document that is electronically produced. The 

Activity Summary Report (ASR) reflects a boarding. The ASR should 

always reflect the name of the Team Lead and Subject POC at the 

top of the report in the designated spaces. When the Team Lead and 

Subject POC name is the same, then it is this name that should 

appear on the ASR as an e-signature in the Narrative Summary 

block of the ASR. If there is a narrative, then place the e-signature 

after the narrative. If the Team Lead and Subject POC names are 

different, then either one of these names may appear as the esignature. If there is no ASR (pollution case) the inspector’s or 

investigator’s e-signature or penned signature should appear on any 

investigative report or summary including the narrative on the face 

of the Enforcement Summary. All statements by any boarding team 

members, inspectors, and investigators should be signed—either 

electronically or penned. 

The e-signature signifies that the statements and information are 

true and accurately recorded as known by the person whose name 

appears in the e-signature. The accepted e-signature format is:

//s//First name, middle initial, last name, rate/rank//
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,531
<PP&E>                                           7,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (862)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,254
<BONDS>                                          4,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,298
<SALES>                                          6,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,870
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    289
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (352)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,849)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.65)


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133841 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133841 COA: 275786 Macomb CC: 2005-004843-FC ROUMMEL JEROME INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0723 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.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
# C_2021207EN.01000201.xml

| 1.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/2

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10134 —EG Group/OMV Germany Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 207/02)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | EG Group Limited (‘EG Group’, United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

EG Group Limited (‘EG Group’, United Kingdom),

| — | OMV Germany Business, controlled by OMV (Austria). |
| --- | --- |

—

OMV Germany Business, controlled by OMV (Austria).

EG Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of OMV Germany Business.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for EG Group: it is the parent company of a number of companies operating under the ‘EG’ brand, active in the operation of fuel stations with ancillary backcourt convenience retail, car wash, fast food, restaurant and hotel offerings in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, |
| --- | --- |

—

for EG Group: it is the parent company of a number of companies operating under the ‘EG’ brand, active in the operation of fuel stations with ancillary backcourt convenience retail, car wash, fast food, restaurant and hotel offerings in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg,

| — | for OMV Germany Business: it is active in the retail sale of motor fuels via a network comprising all OMV-branded (currently 286) fuel stations located in Germany. OMV also offers ancillary services such as car wash and convenience retail. |
| --- | --- |

—

for OMV Germany Business: it is active in the retail sale of motor fuels via a network comprising all OMV-branded (currently 286) fuel stations located in Germany. OMV also offers ancillary services such as car wash and convenience retail.

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.10134 — EG Group/OMV Germany Business

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

---
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1
                                 Certifications

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


I, Gary Stern, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Asta Funding, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 11, 2003


/s/ Gary Stern
--------------
Gary Stern
President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8548
GREGORY MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; G. NUTH, Warden; T. PURNELL, Chief of Security; KAREN WOULDRIDGE, Case Worker; MAJOR FORD; CAPTAIN WOULDRIDGE, JR.; M. ANDERSON, Correctional Officer I; C. A. JACKSON, Remedy Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-334-B) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Marshall v. Commissioner of Correction , No. CA-95-334-B (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2021164EN.01000201.xml

| 4.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/2

---

Special report 7/2021

EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost

(2021/C 164/02)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report 7/2021 ‘EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

I, Allan Rowley, ChiefFinancial Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                               theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                               theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                   | By:    | /s/ ALLAN ROWLEY        |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Allan Rowley            |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| November 22, 2010 |   |                    |

 

----
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





I,
      Phillip Michael Hardy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A (Second Amendment) for the quarterly
      period ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of eLinear, Inc.





Date:
      April 11, 2006











By:
      _/s/  Phillip Michael Hardy__________


Phillip
      Michael Hardy


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer