alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010142EN.01000901.xml

| 10.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 142/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 142/9

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/3/2010

of 28 May 2010

on the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)

(2010/317/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander.

| (2) | The United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWE replace Rear-Admiral Peter HUDSON as EU Operation Commander. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWE replace Rear-Admiral Peter HUDSON as EU Operation Commander.

| (3) | The EU Military Committee supports that recommendation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.

| (4) | In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Major-General Buster HOWE is hereby appointed EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 14 June 2010.

Done at Brussels, 28 May 2010.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairman

C. FERNÁNDEZ-ARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 33.

1

---
Third Department,

November, 1986

(November 7, 1986)

#### The People of the State of New York v Steven M. Pierson, Defendant.

Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                         
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|December 6, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WINSTON R. IRONS, a/k/a Tony,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00016-JPB-RWT-1; 2:14-cv-00090-

JPB-RWT)

Submitted: September 27, 2018 Decided: October 12, 2018

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winston R. Irons, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Winston R. Irons seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must 

be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 2, 2017. The district 

court found on limited remand that Irons filed his notice of appeal on August 8, 2017. We 

review this factual finding for clear error, see Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1012-13 (7th 

Cir. 2012), and we discern no such error. Because Irons failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
08/26/02 12:03 '8'206 220 7108 . ALJ SEATTLE -H~ BALTIMORE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,__ ,\~.= i\'E:[J 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP6lltAttHN CEiHEH 

UNITED STATES COAST qyJ.~ 2 b p ]: S I 

,--, !•. i .,,1' ' 

UNITED STATES COAST Gl:J-AliD:' 

Complainant 

Vs 

DAVID BAARSVIK 

Respondent 

Docket Ntm1ber CG S&R 99-0026 

CG Case No. P A 99000804 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Issued: August 26, 2001!.. 

:-- ~-:·-· ,- l ,_ _ _,_ ;< l i ~-.; 

Issued by: Edwin M. Bladen, Administrative Law Judge 

This matter is presently before me as the result of the Vice Commandant's 

Decision No. 2630 finding that my decision of March 27, 2000 is reversed regarding the 

original charge of Misconduct with one specification (July 9, 1999) and the original 

charge of Negligence with one specification (July 9, 1999), and which further remanded 

the case with respect to the Amended (new) Complaint ofNegligence dated January 18, 

2000. 

On August 21, 2002, Respondent by his counsel has filed a motion to dismiss the 

Amended/New Complaint alleging Negligence. The Coast Guard has filed a response 

concurring in the motion to dismiss. 

Respondent points out this matter is now two and one-half years old and it is 

likely witnesses memories have faded and the additional evidence needed to defend and 

141001/003 

-;;~~~~~-~0~~ ~·~;--90) -. e-cj~---:_ {)j__. --- - - ·- ---· -

Order of Dismissal - 1 

FAX TRANSMITTAL n of pages,.. ¢)3 

Depl.IAgency UUO ~+ 

Fax# 
08/26/02 12:03 '0'206 220 7108 ALJ SEATTLE -'>-'>-'> BALTIMORE 141002/003 

prosecute this matter may be difficult to secure. I concur in Respondent's counsel's 

assessment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, the Coast Guard Amended/New Complaint 

dated January 18, 2000 is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: August 26, 2002. 

~ Edwin M Bladen 

Administrative Law Judge 

Order of Dismissal - 2 
ALJ SEATTLE -H-> BALTIMORE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby ce1iify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon the following 

parties and limited participants (or designated representatives) in this proceeding, at the 

address indicated as follows: 

Marine Safety Office, Providence, RI 

Attn: CWO W.T. Hart 

Telefax: 401-435-2382 

ALJ Docketing Center 

Telefax 

William Hewig, III 

Counsel of Record 

Telefax: 617-654+ 1735 

Dated at Seattle, W A this 261

h day of August, 2002. _./.1 

JA~t~ 

Order of Dismissal - 3 

Legal Ass stant to 

Administrative Law Judge 

@ 003/003
### PD-1001,1002,1003-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/8/2015 4:01:10 PM Accepted 9/8/2015 4:06:31 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAI\ID SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

JOHN FITZGERALD MORGAN

Respondent

Docket Number: 2023-0093

Enforcement Activi(v Number: 7 617 623

CONSENT ORDERAPPROVIN G SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Done and dated this 8'h day of May, 2023.

at Baltimore, Maryland

HON. LINEKA N. QUIJANO

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

On March 28,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair

and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

SO ORDERED.
**Exhibit      21.1**

**Subsidiaries—as      of December 31, 2007 **

| **Company                Name** |   | **State                or country of****incorporation                or organization**** ** |   | **Voting                percent owned directly or indirectly by registrant**** ** |   | **Notes**** ** |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|

| China                Kangtai Cactus Bio-techCompany                Limited         | British                Virgin Islands                               | 100%   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Harbin                Hainan Kangda Cacti HygienicalFoods                Co., Ltd. | People’s                Republic of China (“PRC”) | 100%   |   |
| Guangdong                Taishan Kangda Cactus Hygienical Food Co., Ltd.           | PRC                                                                 | 100%   |   |
|                                                                               |                                                                |   |   |

----
# C_2021430EN.01000101.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 430/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 430/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10255 – TRITON / BERGMAN CLINICS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 430/01)

On 3 August 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 32021M10255. 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 32021M10255. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

TERRY EUGENE CAULDER, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________ 

Docket Number 2023-0399 

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7798135 

CONSENT ORDER 

Issued: December 12, 2023 

By: Honorable George J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances: 

LT Larry Schalles 

Sector Charleston 

For the Coast Guard 

Terry Eugene Caulder, Pro se

For the Respondent 
2 

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

 On November 20, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

 I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding. 

SO ORDERED. 

Done and dated December 12, 2023, 

Seattle, Washington 

_______________________________ 

George J. Jordan

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard
#### HOLLY MANUF’G CO., Appellant, v. VENNER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by the Holly Manufacturing Company against Clarence H. Venner.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

D. McClure, for appellant.

B. Winthrop, for respondent.

No opinion. Order modified by requiring defendant, as a condition of granting stay, to give bond for $2,500, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. See 26. N. Y. Supp. 581.
# C_2021118EN.01005001.xml

| 7.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/50

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9744 — Mastercard/Nets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 118/02)

On 17 August 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32020M9744. 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 32020M9744. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00670-CR

Jonathan R. Spurkosky, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 646,148, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jonathan R. Spurkosky was convicted in a municipal court of record for

failing to maintain financial responsibility and fined $236. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.191

(West 1999). The conviction was affirmed by the county court at law. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 30.00014 (West 2004). Appellant perfected a further appeal to this court. See id. § 30.00027.

Appellant contends in two points of error that the evidence is legally and factually

insufficient to sustain his conviction. Austin Police Officer David Ortiz testified that he stopped

appellant for driving on the left side of a divided highway. The officer said that he “asked him for

his proof of financial responsibility which he could not produce at that time.” During his own

testimony, appellant acknowledged that he did not present proof ofinsurance or any type of financial

responsibility to anyone. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.193 (West Supp. 2004). We agree with

the county court at law that this evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sustain the conviction
2

for failing to maintain financial responsibility. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979)

(test for legalsufficiency); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155, 158-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (same);

Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 668, at *20 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 21,

2004) (test for factual sufficiency).

Appellant devotes most of his appellate brief to a discussion of Officer Ortiz’s

authority to stop him. It is appellant’s argument that if the stop was unlawful, any evidence obtained

by the officer was inadmissible. All evidence, however, including evidence erroneously admitted,

is considered in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. Camarillo v. State, 82 S.W.3d 529, 537

(Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).

Finding the evidence to be legally and factually sufficient to sustain the municipal

court conviction, we overrule the points of error and affirm the judgment of the county court at law.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: July 29, 2004

Do Not Publish
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40703 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARL ESTER BECK; BOBBY DEWAYNE JONES, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:00-CR-77-1

-------------------- June 6, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carl Ester Beck appeals the judgment of the district court following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base. Bobby Dewayne Jones appeals the judgment of the district court following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base near a school.No. 01-40703 -2- Beck argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. Beck has not shown that the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved with a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. See United States v. Ortega-Reyna , 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Dukes , 139 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir. 1998). Beck also argues that the district court erred in sentencing him based on its finding that he committed an offense involving crack cocaine. He has not shown error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). Jones argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. He has not shown that the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved with a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. See Ortega-Reyna , 148 F.3d at 543. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE EXPERTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,625
<INVENTORY>                                     11,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,324
<PP&E>                                          35,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,628
<BONDS>                                         16,133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,210
<SALES>                                        248,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,110
<CGS>                                          161,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,945
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>