alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021342EN.01000101.xml

| 25.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10366 — DOCOMO/Komatsu/Landlog)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 342/01)

On 17 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 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 32021M10366. 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 32021M10366. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50249.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 19, 2007.

Stephen G. Wolfe, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan Harrington, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jonathan Harrington appeals *pro se*from the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis, *see United States v. Townsend,*98 F.3d 510, 512 (9th Cir.1996), and so we affirm.

Harrington contends that Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines lowered the sentencing range applicable to his convictions. In order for Harrington to prevail, Amendment 489 would also have to apply retroactively to his conviction, because Amendment 599 did not modify the proviso in application note 2 that determined Harrington’s original sentencing range. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the Sentencing Commission has not expressly made Amendment 489 retroactive. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). Thus, Amendment 599 did not lower the sentencing range applicable to his convictions, and the district court *748did not abuse its discretion by denying Harrington’s motion. *See United States v. Lowe,*136 F.3d 1231, 1232 (9th Cir.1998).

We decline to consider arguments Harrington raises for the first time on appeal. *See Snow-Erlin v. United States,*470 F.3d 804, 808 n. 1 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### CHARLIER v. SAGINAW STEEL S. S. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 29, 1896.)

Supplementary Proceedings—Receiver—Substitution in Action by Debtor.

A receiver in supplementary proceedings cannot be substituted as plaintiff in an action brought by the judgment debtor, where the debtor had assigned the claim to a third person before the supplementary proceedings were begun.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Elie S. Oharlier against the Saginaw Steel Steamship Company. From an order directing the substitution of Philip J. Britt, receiver, as plaintiff in the action, plaintiff Charlier appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, PATTERSON, O'BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

C. E. Travis, for appellant.

James E. Chandler, for receiver.

PATTERSON, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the special term directing that one Philip J. Britt, a receiver in supplementary proceedings of Elie S. Oharlier, be substituted as plaintiff in this action in place of said Oharlier. The court below, in granting the order, seems to have proceeded upon the theory that the claim which the plaintiff seeks to enforce against the defendant in this action was one which belonged to the plaintiff at the time the receiver was appointed, or at the time the supplementary proceedings in which he was appointed were instituted, and that, therefore, the title to the claim in this action vested in the receiver.But the facts as they appear in the papers do not sustain that view. At neither of the times mentioned was Mr. Oharlier the owner of the claim in suit in this action. Before the supplementary proceedings were begun, Oharlier had assigned the claim to one Galloway; and the legal title to that claim, and the right to enforce it, belonged to Galloway before any right of the receiver could' attach, and Oharlier had no control over it. It did not constitute an asset of the receivership, and the order appealed" from should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2168 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2168

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To make the current Dungeness crab fishery management regime permanent 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``West Coast Dungeness Crab Management 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY MANAGEMENT.

    Section 203 of the Act entitled ``An Act to approve a governing 
international fishery agreement between the United States and the 
Republic of Poland, and for other purposes'', approved November 13, 
1998 (Public Law 105-384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (i); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (i).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2168

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To make the current Dungeness crab fishery management regime permanent 
                        and for other purposes.
```
# C_2021324EN.01000201.xml

| 12.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10337 — BC Partners/Vista Equity Partners/EAB Global)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 324/02)

On 4 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 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 32021M10337. 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 32021M10337. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
<PAGE>
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



     The Conversion was effective November 22, 1996.  Accordingly, earnings per
share data for the year ended June 30, 1997 is comprised of the earnings for the
post-Conversion period.  The weighted average number of shares outstanding
includes all shares issued and outstanding of 1,851,500 less 112,000 shares
purchased by the ESOP at the time of the Conversion plus the pro-rata portion of
shares committed to be released through June 30, 1997.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                  <C>
Net income for the period from November 22, 1996 to June 30, 1997    $831,586
 
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                        1,790,311
 
Earnings per share                                                   $.46
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1199

JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DIANE L. SCHROEDER, Chief Primary Care Physician; NAVREET K. KALLAR, M.D.; CAROLYN JOHNSON, Nurse; HUNTER HOLMES MCGUIRE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER; DIRECTOR OF HUNTER HOLMES MCGUIRE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cv-00554-RLW) Submitted: September 20, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Rodgers Burnley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging violations of his civil rights by employees at the Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distri ct court. See Burnley v. United States , No. 3:05-cv-00554-RLW (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2005). We 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
#### LOUIS B. FINE FAMILY, LLC, Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Appellee.

No. 2006-1529.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 13, 2007.

Morris H. Fine, Fine, Fine, Legum & McCracken, LLP, of Virginia Beach, VA, argued for appellant.

Robert E. Chandler, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and Donald E. Kinner, Assistant Director.

Before RADER, BRYSON and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# C_2021245EN.01000501.xml

| 24.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9686 – Mitsui/Belchim Crop Protection)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/05)

On 11 February 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) 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 32021M9686. 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 32021M9686. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2021262EN.01002001.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/20

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10232 — Brose/Sitech)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 262/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft (Germany), (together with its affiliated companies ‘BROSE’), |
| --- | --- |

—

Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft (Germany), (together with its affiliated companies ‘BROSE’),

| — | SITECH Sp. z o. o. (Poland) (together with its affiliated companies ‘SITECH’), belonging to the group of Volkswagen AG (‘VW’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

SITECH Sp. z o. o. (Poland) (together with its affiliated companies ‘SITECH’), belonging to the group of Volkswagen AG (‘VW’, Germany).

BROSE acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of SITECH.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for BROSE: producer of automotive components and mechatronic systems for vehicle doors, seat structures (including integrated seat components), electric motors and electronics, including steering, braking, gearbox and motor cooling, |
| --- | --- |

—

for BROSE: producer of automotive components and mechatronic systems for vehicle doors, seat structures (including integrated seat components), electric motors and electronics, including steering, braking, gearbox and motor cooling,

| — | for SITECH: producer of complete vehicle seats, metal seat structures and seat structure components. |
| --- | --- |

—

for SITECH: producer of complete vehicle seats, metal seat structures and seat structure components.

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.10232 — Brose/Sitech

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

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7108

In Re: MOHAMMAD ZINDADIL, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 1:01-cr-00190) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mohammad Zindadil, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mohammad Zindadil petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the Government to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion. We conclude that Zindadil is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The party seeking mandamus relief must show that he has no other means of obtaining the r equested relief. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc . , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). The relief sought by Zindadil is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 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.

PETITION DENIED
Order issued October , 2012

In The 

## (!uitrt uf Aipia1s ifth 1itrirt uf iIixa at 1aI1a No. 05-1 2-00663-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.V. AND SN., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-1 1968-V 

### ORDER The Court has before it court reporter Donna Kindle’s September 26, 2012 motion for reconsiderationofordergranting appellant’smotionto challenge ordersustaining contest. TheCourt DENIES the motion. See TEx. R. App. P. 20.1(j). 

## /7 ,/fr/f TABTH LANG-MIERS’ JUsTIE
##### 



ROSCOE POSTLE ASSOCIATES INC.
    
    www.rpacan.com
 James L. Pearson
    
    David W. RennieSuite 501
    
    Suite 304, PO Box 1955 University Ave.
    
    595 Howe StreetToronto, Ontario
    
    Vancouver, British ColumbiaM6J 2H7
    
    Canada V6C 2T5Tel: (416) 947-0907
    
    Tel: (604) 602-6767Fax: (416) 947-0395
    
    Fax: (602) 602-0235Email:
jpearson@rpacan.com
    
    Email: drennie@rpacan.com
 CONSENT
 TO:
Ontario Securities Commission
 Securities Exchange Commission
 Re: El Peñon Mine 2005 Yearend Mineral Reserve and Resource Statement
   rd
 (SEAL)
    
    (SEAL)David W. Rennie, P. Eng.
    
    James L. Pearson, P. Eng.Consulting Geological Engineer
    
    Associate Consulting Mining EngineerRoscoe Postle Associates Inc.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-21585, 333-23937, 333-39817, 333-43586, 333-43588, 333-56772, 333-56774,
333-67881, 333-71890 and 333-101600 of Lightbridge, Inc., all on Form S-8, of
our report dated January 24, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Lightbridge, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 2003
(76 Hun, 53.)

#### VAN INWEGEN v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

February 12, 1894.)

Appeal—Review—Weioht op Evidence.

In an action against a railroad company for personal injuries, caused1 by blowing a whistle and letting off steam from defendant’s locomotive, whereby plaintiff’s team w"as ñ-ightened and ran away, a judgment in favor of plaintiff will not be disturbed on appeal on the ground that the-engineer was not acting within the scope of his employment, where he testifies that the acts complained of were done for the purpose of moving the cars in the course of his duty, though according to plaintiff’s testimony such acts were willful and malicious.

Appeal from circuit court, Orange county.

Action by James H. Van Inwegen against the New York, Lake-Erie & Western Railroad Company to recover for injuries to plaintiff’s team of horses, harness, and wagon, and for injuries to himself, caused by the running away of his horses, which were frightened: *170by defendant’s locomotive. Plaintiff alleged that while;, a locomotive was standing idle on defendant’s track, near the highway, plaintiff asked the engineer not to start or make any noise until he got past with his team, but that the engineer started the locomotive, blew the whistle, let off steam, and made such a noise that the team was frightened into running away and doing the damage complained of. Defendant answered that it used such prudence and reasonable care as was usual in its business, and no more noise was made than was needed for the necessary signal. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

John W. Lyon, for appellant.

Lewis C. Carr, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The principal argument urged against the verdict is that, if plaintiff was correct in his interpretation of the engineer’s action, it was willful and malicious, and not performed in the service of defendant. The answer to that argument is that the opinion of the plaintiff was not binding on the jury, who were the judges of that question. The engineer testified that he blew the whistle in the course of his duty for the purpose of moving the cars. The jury had a right to believe the engineer. They were also authorized by the testimony to find that the action of the engineer was heedless, and without due regard to the situation of the plaintiff. The charge of the court correctly laid down the law, and the testimony warranted the verdict. Judgment affirmed.