alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021197EN.01000301.xml

| 26.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10208 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/WABI CCH JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 197/03)

On 19 May 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 32021M10208. 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 32021M10208. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 24-0246 

ROBERT EUGENE WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SHERYL ZIEGLER, Commander, Missoula 

County Detention Facility, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

F LF

APR 3 0 2024 

Bowen Greerrwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Robert Eugene Williams, via counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, alleging he is unlawfully detained. On April 17, 2024, the Fourth Judicial District 

Court, Missoula County, Hon. Robert L. Deschamps, III, presiding, held a hearing on its 

Order to Show Cause as to why Williams should not be found in contempt of a previous 

order of that court that ordered Williams to return $75,000 that he removed from a trust or 

trusts of which he was Trustee. The court ultimately found Williams in contempt and 

ordered him taken into custody until $75,000 is deposited with the Office of the Missoula 

County Clerk of Court. The District Court issued a written order to this effect that same 

day. 

Williams now challenges that order on petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges 

that he has filed for bankruptcy and he does not have $75,000. He argues that Judge 

Deschamps has "essentially put [him] in debtor's prison because he cannot pay this debt." 

He further alleges that the court had insufficient evidence to find that Williams had any of 

these funds in his possession. 

A contempt proceeding may be reviewed under a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

if the person seeking review is incarcerated at the time of filing the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. Gillispie v. Sherlock, 279 Mont. 21, 929 P.2d 199 (1996) (citing Crane v. 

State, 200 Mont. 280, 283, 650 P.2d 794, 796 (1982). Since Williams is presently 

04/30/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0246
incarcerated, we review the contempt proceeding at issue here. Our review of contempt 

proceedings is limited to whether the lower court had jurisdiction to issue the contempt 

order and whether there is evidence to support the order. Gillispie, 279 Mont. at 24, 929 

P.2d at 200 (citing State ex rel. Foss v. District Court, 216 Mont. 327, 701 P.2d 342 

(1985)). In this case, Williams challenges whether there is evidence to support the court's 

order. 

We conclude that Williams has not met his burden of demonstrating a prima facie 

case for habeas corpus relief as required by Miller v. Eleventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 2007 MT 58, 

¶ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 154 P.3d 1186. In this case, Williams has made no showing of a 

violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay. Although Williams offers some checking 

account statements to this Court, he does not assert that this is his sole asset nor provide 

verification of these exhibits. Furthermore, his petition cites to no legal authority in support 

of his arguments. M. R. App. P. 14(5)(b)(iii). He has therefore failed to persuade this 

Court that he is entitled to relief. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 

DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to 

Robert Eugene Williams personally. 

DATED this of April, 2024. 

Justices 

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 Emeritus Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Raymond R. Brandstrom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 
 1.
The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 
 2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
 /s/ Raymond R. BrandstromRaymond R. BrandstromChief Financial OfficerJanuary 27, 2005
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 23, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00588

- CV

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF Laverne T. CADY

From the Probate Court No

. 2

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PC

- 4312 Honorable Veronica Vasquez , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We ORDER all costs of the appeal assessed against appellants.

It is so ORDERED on October 23, 2019

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of October, 2019

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Trigon Healthcare, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-26187) on Form S-8 of Trigon Healthcare, Inc. of our report dated April 14,
2000, relating to the statements of financial condition of the Trigon
Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan as of December 31, 1999 and 1998,
and the related statements of income and changes in plan equity for the years
ended December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the period May 1, 1997 (inception) through
December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Form 10-K/A No. 1 of Trigon
Healthcare, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, Virginia
April 28, 2000
NUMBER 13-16-00316-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

JORGE ZAMORA QUEZADA AND 

JCZO, LP, Appellants,

v.

HITACHI MEDICAL SYSTEMS 

AMERICA, INC., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

On July 13, 2016, we abated this appeal due to the bankruptcy of one of the 

parties. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 8. On January 31, 2019, 

we ordered the parties to file, within fourteen days of the date of this order, an advisory 

regarding the status of the appeal and, if applicable, a motion to reinstate the appeal or a 
2

motion to dismiss the appeal. We advised the parties that the failure to respond to this 

order would result in reinstatement and dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). We have not received a response to our order. 

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and we dismiss it for want of prosecution. See id. 

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

14th day of March, 2019.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20325

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ BARAJAS,

also known as La Burra,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-407-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Alejandro Sanchez Barajas has

requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Barajas was informed

of his right to respond but has not done so. Our independent

review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Grieco, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered May 7, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine. Evidence of his prior possession of cocaine, which had not resulted in a conviction, was properly admitted on the People’s direct case solely to prove the element of knowledge, and the jury was so instructed during the court’s charge *(see, People v Molineux,*168 NY 264).

The sentence imposed was not inappropriate under the circumstances *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). We find the *490defendant’s remaining contentions to be without merit. Mengano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED
IN THE TRIGON HEALTHCARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,500
<SECURITIES>                                 1,582,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                  378,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,979,349
<PP&E>                                         135,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,174,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          875,063
<BONDS>                                         89,339
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           423
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,070,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,174,225
<SALES>                                      2,073,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,236,352
<CGS>                                        1,652,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,044,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                186,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                    63,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,572
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.88
        



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20410]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et 
seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 
CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to 
become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets 
or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a 
savings association.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on whether the 
proposed transaction complies with the standards enumerated in the HOLA 
(12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than October 21, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice 
President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#185a574b364b4a5b3659686874717b796c7177766b365b7775757d766c6b587a776b367e6a7a36776a7f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84c6cbd7aad7d6c7aac5f4f4e8ede7e5f0edebeaf7aac7ebe9e9e1eaf0f7c4e6ebf7aae2f6e6aaebf6e3">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. 15 Beach MHC and CFSB Bancorp, Inc., both of Quincy, 
Massachusetts; to become a mutual holding company and a mid-tier stock 
savings and loan holding company, respectively, by acquiring 100% of 
the voting shares of Colonial Federal Savings Bank, Quincy, 
Massachusetts, upon the conversion of the Bank from a federal mutual 
savings bank to a federal stock savings bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 16, 
2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-20410 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



Board of Directors and Shareholders
Applied Intelligence Group, Inc.


We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement  of Applied Intelligence Group, Inc. on Form S-8  (File
No.  333-22227) of our report dated March 7, 1997, on our  audits
of  the financial statements of Applied Intelligence Group,  Inc.
as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the three years
in  the  period ended December 31, 1996, which report is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.



                              COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 27, 1997
#### Moustapha SACKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-30096

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 17, 2007.

Wayne Joseph Blanchard, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Katherine Wharton Vincent, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Moustapha Sacko, an immigration detainee, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his pre-removal detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He now appeals the district court’s holding he failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future. According to Sacko, his continued detention beyond six months violates the rule from *Zadvydas v. Davis,*533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).

It appears the district court did *not*err in concluding Sacko hampered the Government’s efforts to remove him. We need *not*reach that issue, however. Instead, we note the district court ordered the Government to obtain travel documents from Burundi within six months. That period has now passed, rendering moot any dispute over the rationale for the district court’s order of continued detention. Therefore, we vacate and remand to the district court to determine whether, given the current status of the case, “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future”. *Id.*at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491; *see also Gul v. Rozos,*163 Fed.Appx. 317 (5th Cir.2006).

*VACATED AND REMANDED*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2021398EN.01000601.xml

| 1.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10334 – BMW/Daimler/BP/Digital Charging Solutions)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 398/05)

On 24 September 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 32021M10334. 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 32021M10334. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
1

NO. 03-15-00316-CR

HEATHER LAUREN RICHARDS § IN THE THIRD 

 § 

v. § DISTRICT COURT OF 

§ 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPEALS OF TEXAS 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL - STATE

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

 COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its Assistant 

District Attorney, and files this appearance of counsel in the above-captioned 

cause. The previous attorney listed on the State’s brief in this case – Ms. Chari L. 

Kelly – took a position with another office, and the undersigned counsel hereby 

appears and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court forward any further 

notices and correspondence to his county email address. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Joshua D. Presley 

 Joshua D. Presley

 SBN: 24088254 

 preslj@co.comal.tx.us 

 Comal Criminal District Attorney’s Office 

 150 N. Seguin Avenue, Suite 307 

 New Braunfels, Texas 78130 

 Ph: (830) 221-1300 / Fax: (830) 608-2008 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00316-CR

8023720

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/1/2015 8:16:55 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/1/2015 8:16:55 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua D. Presley, Assistant District Attorney for the State of Texas, 

Appellee, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Appearance of Counsel 

- State has been delivered to Appellant HEATHER LAUREN RICHARD’s 

attorney of record in this matter:

Amanda Erwin

109 East Hopkins Street, Suite 200

San Marcos, Texas 78666

Phone: (512) 938-1800

amanda@theerwinlawfirm.com

Counsel for Appellant on Appeal

by electronic mail service through efile.txcourts.gov, this 1

st day of December,

2015.

 /s/ Joshua D. Presley

 Joshua D. Presley