alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021406EN.01000101.xml

| 8.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10363 – NPM Capital/Infinitas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 406/01)

On 1 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 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 32021M10363. 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 32021M10363. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### Karen B. Mocciaro, as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Donald Brown, Deceased, Respondent, v Joseph Lopergolo, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant Joseph Lopergolo appeals from the denial of his summary judgment motion in this action in which plaintiff seeks to impose liability on him for the death of her 15-year-old intestate on theories of common-law negligence and violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210. We reverse.

It is undisputed that decedent participated in the theft and unauthorized use of Lopergolo’s car and that, although decedent did not drive the car, his death resulted from its negligent operation by his accomplice. It is also undisputed that defendant left his car unattended, with the motor running and the doors unlocked, while he shopped. Plaintiff has no cause of action for common-law negligence since "[a]t common law the owner was not liable, as a matter of law, for the negligence of a thief, on the basis that the use of the car by the thief intervened between the occurrence of the negligence of the owner and the unskillful driving of the car by the thief’ *(Guaspari v Gorsky,*36 AD2d 225, 228, *appeal dismissed*29 NY2d 891; see, *Walter v Bond,*267 App Div 779, *affd*292 NY 574; *Mann v Parshall,*229 App Div 366). Further, although section 1210, enacted in 1954, changed the common law so that the intervention of an unauthorized person no longer operates to break the chain of causation *(see, Guaspari v Gorsky, supra),*the section was not designed to protect "unauthorized users from the consequences of their own actions” *(Rushink v Gerstheimer,*82 AD2d 944, 945). In order to base *975an action upon the violation of a statute, "the person seeking to recover damages must come within the scope of the statutory protection” (41 NY Jur, Negligence, § 44, at 60) and must bring himself within the class to be protected *(see, Lopes v Rostad,*45 NY2d 617, 623; *see also,*Prosser, Torts § 36, at 194 [4th ed]). The legislative history of section 1210 does not permit a conclusion that the Legislature intended to abrogate that portion of. the common-law rule which denied recovery to thieves for the consequences of their own actions *(see,*1954 NY Legis Doc No. 36, at 106-107). In our view, plaintiff does not represent a member of the class designed to be protected by the statute so that her claim for a breach of a statutory duty must fall. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00026-CR

IN RE Detrick DEROVEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

On January 16, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting the Honorable 

Jefferson Moore has not ruled on relator’s pending “In Omnibus Motion for 

Inspection/Duplication of the Judicial Record/Information and the Court’s In Camera of Same 

With Appendix/Affidavit Attached” (the “Omnibus Motion”). Relator also filed a Motion for 

Leave to File Petition and a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

We deny as moot relator’s Motion for Leave because leave is not required to file a petition

for writ of mandamus in an intermediate appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; In re Medina, 

04-19-00041-CR, 2019 WL 360534, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 30, 2019, no pet.). We 

grant relator’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1996-CR-3437-A, styled The State of Texas v. Detrick Deroven, pending in 

the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding.
04-20-00026-CR

- 2 -

On January 28, 2020, the trial court provided this court with a courtesy copy of the court’s 

ruling on the Omnibus Motion, which states: “24 Jan 2020 Denied JM.” Because relator obtained 

the relief requested, we dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
#### In the Matter of Gino Rudolph Cobos, Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v Robert Dennison, as Chairman of New York State Division of Parole, et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 22, 2007;

decided February 13, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Judge Jones taking no part.
July 3, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NASIR W. QUIRESHI D/B/A/ Q LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00302-CV V.

THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on November 29, 2011. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by NASIR 

W. QUIRESHI D/B/A/ Q LEGAL SOLUTIONS.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2021081EN.01001201.xml

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/12

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40608 – Broadcom

Rapporteur: Lithuania

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/10)

1.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision prima facie constitutes an abuse of a dominant position that infringes Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision on the urgent need for interim measures due to the risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition.

3.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that it is necessary and appropriate to impose interim measures pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in the terms set out in the draft decision.

4.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the duration of the interim measures, as set out in the draft decision.

5.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
# C_2021459EN.01001201.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/12

---

EUROPEAN ASYLUM SUPPORT OFFICE

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/12)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EASO_FINAL_Accounts_2020.pdf

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,331,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  207,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,957,659
<PP&E>                                       3,378,530
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,519,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,048,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,769,958
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                         8,904
<OTHER-SE>                                   (580,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,048,089
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,450,598
<CGS>                                          270,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,586,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,947,282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,947,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,197,282)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.94)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

      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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
Lightbridge, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February xx, 2006 (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.
      /s/ Robert E. Donahue                          /s/ Timothy C. O'Brien
      -----------------------------                  -------------------------
      Robert E. Donahue                              Timothy C. O'Brien
      President and Chief Executive Officer          Chief Financial Officer

      Date: February 17, 2006                           Date: February 17, 2006
Listen

# Historical Documents

Archives

**Filter Options:**

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last  

Displaying 1 - 30 of 428 results
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          89,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  715,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    214,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,318,132
<PP&E>                                       6,386,922
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,994,023)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,150,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,866,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    379,074
<COMMON>                                        33,344
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,966,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,150,187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,507,157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,295,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             167,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (463,748)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (463,748)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (463,748)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Fordham, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), imposed May 28, 1985.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing of the defendant as a second felony offender.

At sentencing, the defendant was erroneously deemed to be a second violent felony offender. The defendant is only a second felony offender, and should be resentenced as such. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10726 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARIO MUNOZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16 -CR-8-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Munoz

- Garcia pleaded guilty to one count of being illegally present in the United States following deportation. The district court found that Munoz

- Garcia’s criminal history category was underrepresented and imposed a 72

- month sentence, above the advisory guidelines range of 46

- 57 months in prison, to be followed by a three

- year term of supervised release. In his only argument on appeal, Munoz

- Garcia asserts that because the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10726 Document: 00513894979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2017No. 16

- 10726

2 indictment did not allege his prior aggravated felony conviction, his sente nce, which exceeded the two

- year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), constituted a violation of his due process rights. He conc edes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he maintains that the reasoning of this case has been called into question by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). The Government has filed a motion for a summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief. Summary affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). As Munoz

- Garcia concedes, his due process argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres . Although Apprendi and Alleyne require that facts increasing the statutory maximum or minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they have preserved an exception for prior convictions. Alleyne , 133 S. Ct. at 2160

- 64 & n.1; Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489

- 90. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRA NTED , and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. Case: 16-10726 Document: 00513894979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2017
# Patent

## Title
Manually-operated labeler

## Abstract

While there has been shown in somewhat schematic form apparatus for sealing cartons and containers, it should be understood that existing structure has already been developed for conveying the item to be sealed in positions for sealing. That is to stand the item up, turn the item over or vertically place it in any desired position. Therefore, these mechanisms and mechanical structures have purposely been omitted from this disclosure .

## Background
## Claims

what is claimed is:

1. Apparatus for sealing objects such as cartons and containers coated with sealant material comprising: sealed; in the path of said beam, whereby a portion of the beam is reflected by each reflective means in a directive to impinge upon the objects to be sealed on said conveyor and a portion of said beam is passed through to the next successive reflective means; germanium having two prisms each having matching reflective surfaces and including a coating of balsam cement doped with approximately 0.01 of 1% to 0.9 of 1% barium-strontium-titanates; means coupled to said reflective means for causing and varying the reflectivity of said reflective means; surfaces including a microwave transmitter coupled to the balsam cement surface coated on said reflective surface.

2. The Apparatus as defined in claim 1 and further including means disposed between said laser and said reflective means in the path of the laser beam to defocus and broaden said beam.

3. The apparatus as defined in claim 2 wherein said means for defocusing and broadening the beam a variable collimator and convex lense.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification

I, Ken Hedrick, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b.     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a.     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 24, 2004


/s/ Ken Hedrick
-------------------------------
Ken Hedrick, Principal Accounting Officer


<PAGE>
BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #99298 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #01257 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov 

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov 

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

AMMON BUNDY, 

RYAN PAYNE, 

RYAN BUNDY, 

BRIAN CAVALIER, 

PETER SANTILLI, and 

BLAINE COOPER, 

 Defendants.

3:16-CR-00051-BR 

WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

 AD PROSEQUENDUM

The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF No. 334), hereby files the 

attached Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued by the District of Nevada for 

defendants Ammon Bundy, Payne, Ryan Bundy, Cavalier, Santilli, and Cooper. Copies of the 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 344 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 2
Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum Page 2

Writs, unsealed in Nevada case number 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL on March 24, 2016, were 

provided to the Portland office of the U.S. Marshals Service this date. 

 Dated this 24th day of March 2016. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Craig J. Gabriel 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #99298 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #01257 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 344 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2