alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Brown, Appellant, v James Conway, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted November 27, 2006;

decided January 16, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that this motion for leave to appeal does not lie from the order of the individual Justice of the Appellate Division *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
# C_2021402EN.01000201.xml

| 5.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10397 – Tecpetrol/Oaktree/Litoral Gas/ECS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 402/02)

On 27 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 32021M10397. 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 32021M10397. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. JORDAN, Appellant, v. MARTIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1896.)

Certiorari by Albert A. Jordan against James J. Martin and others.

J. M. Tierney, for appellant.

T. Farley, for respondents.

No opinion. Proceedings affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Adult Home at Erie Station, Inc., Respondent, v Assessor and Board of Assessment Review of City of Middletown et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

Motion by the New York State Assessors Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
#### SCHULZ, Respondent, v. BAIRD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by Franz Schulz against William A. Baird and Benjamin Newmark.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2222 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 

the allowance of a deduction to Members of Congress for ordinary and 

necessary business expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2015 

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the limitation on the allowance of a deduction to Members of Congress for ordinary and necessary business 

expenses. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminate Special 

5 Treatment for Congress Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2222 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON ALLOWANCE OF DE2 DUCTION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOR 

3 ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EX4 PENSES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162(a) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘home,’’ 

7 and all that follows through ‘‘$3,000.’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘home.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2015. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
inducementawardagreement






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C August 7 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C August 7
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021370EN.01000601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/6 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10441 — Bridgepoint/FFL/ACT)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 370/06)

1.

On 6 September 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021370EN.01000601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Bridgepoint Group plc, (‘Bridgepoint’, UK), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | FFL B.V. (‘FFL’, The Netherlands), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sustainable Market Solutions B.V and ACT Financial Solutions Group, (together ‘ACT’, The Netherlands). |

This notification concerns the proposed acquisition of joint control, within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation, of ACT by Bridgepoint and FFL which is controlled by ACT’s founders and current majority shareholders.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Bridgepoint: portfolio investments, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for FFL: holding company, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for ACT: provides market based sustainable energy solutions, relating to environmental compliance services, corporate sustainability, fuels and feedstock, and financial instruments. |

3.

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

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021370EN.01000601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

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

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

M.10441 — Bridgepoint/FFL/ACT

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

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

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

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

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021370EN.01000601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021370EN.01000601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### Emilio VERGARA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70992.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Emilio Vergara-Ramirez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*634Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Emilio Vergara-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Vergara-Ramirez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).

The agency determined that VergaraRamirez’s 1993 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 288(c) was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) that rendered him ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repeal effective April 1, 1997). Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held in *United States v. Castro,*607 F.3d 566, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2010), that a conviction under California Penal Code § 288(c) does not categorically constitute “sexual abuse of a minor.” We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for reconsideration in light of *Castro.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I.INITED STATES OF AMEzuCA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ComPlainant

VS

RANDALL LEE LOWREY

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-01 l4

Enforcement Activity No. 7 6501 24

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On March 21, 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 ofthis proceeding.

Done and Dated April 17,2023 at

New Orleans, LA

HON. BRIAN J. CURLEY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

ADMINISTRATIVf, LAW JUDGE
**EXHIBIT 12.1****Certifications**I, Fiona A. Robertson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Petsec Energy Ltd; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and15d-15e) for the Company and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting;Date: May 16, 2006          /s/ Fiona A. Robertson        Fiona A. Robertson  Chief Financial Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50845

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL AGUSTO VELASQUEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-108-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Agusto Velasquez-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Velasquez-Lopez complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior

conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is

unconstitutional. Velasquez-Lopez thus contends that his

sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 
No. 01-50845

-2-

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Velasquez-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form  S-8  (Registration  Nos.  333-55180,   333-63268,   333-68718,  333-81290,
333-104402,  333-108529 and  333-125194) of Paid, Inc. of our report dated March
17, 2006, on our audit of the consolidated  financial  statements of Paid, Inc.,
which report  appears in the  December 31, 2005 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of
Paid, Inc.


/s/ Carlin, Charron & Rosen, LLP

Westborough, Massachusetts
March 31, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR ADELPHIA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  466,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         943,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,563,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          177,746
<BONDS>                                        803,860
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    260,848
<COMMON>                                           695
<OTHER-SE>                                     279,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,563,703
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,575
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (157,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (157,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (197,084)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.47)


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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered October 12, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Because the codefendant testified at the trial, the defendant was not denied his 6th Amendment right to confrontation *(see, Bruton v United States,*391 US 123). Moreover, since the defendant’s and codefendant’s confessions were "interlocking” in that they were "duplicative” in their description of the crucial facts of the crime, the probability of prejudice to the defendant by the introduction of the codefendant’s confession was so negligible that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial *(People v Berzups,*49 NY2d 417; *see, People v Cruz,*66 NY2d 61, 64, *cert granted*— US —, 106 S Ct 2888; *People v Brensic,*118 AD2d 281). The fact that these confessions implicated both the defendant and the codefendant as the shooter does not require reversal of the conviction herein in light of the interlocking nature of the remainder of the confessions. *500Since the defendant denied that unrelated charges were pending against him when he was questioned by the police, it was reasonable for the police to rely on his denial in not conducting a further investigation of whether the defendant’s right to counsel had attached at the time of the prior unrelated arrest *(see, People v Lucarano,*61 NY2d 138). Therefore, it was not error for the hearing court to deny suppression of the statement made by the defendant upon being questioned by the police *(see, People v Bertolo, 65*NY2d 111).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUSTAVO PEREZ

- GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71032

Agency No. A206

- 263

- 193

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted July 14, 2020 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Gustavo Perez

- Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigr ation Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider
the BIA’s prior order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

cancellation of removal

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We

revie w for abuse of discretion the d enial of a motion to reconsider. Toor v. Lynch
,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71032

789 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez

- Garcia’s motion to

reconsider
, where he failed to ide ntify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior

determination that his acceptance of voluntary departure in 2010 was knowing and

voluntar y

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Iturribarria v. INS , 321 F.3d 889, 89 5
(9th Cir. 2003) (explaining requirements for motion to reconsider) ; Gutierrez v.
Mukasey , 521 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2008) (departure was knowing and

voluntary where petitioner testified that he knew he had an opportunity to see an IJ
in lieu of taking voluntary departure). W e do not address Perez

- Garcia’s other

contention s regarding eligibility because a lack of continuous physical presence is

dispositive

. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004)

. We lack jurisdiction to review the unexhausted contentions in Perez

Garcia’s reply brief that the agency erred by placing the burden of establishing his

departure was not knowing and voluntary on him and by using his responses to the
IJ’s questioning to co nclude that his departure was knowing and voluntary

. See
Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court “lack[s]
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.