alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021209EN.01002501.xml

| 2.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/25

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9637 — IAG/Air Europa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 209/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A. (‘IAG’, Spain and United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A. (‘IAG’, Spain and United Kingdom),

| — | Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.; Aeronova S.L.U.; and León Activos Aeronáuticos , S.L.U. (together ‘Air Europa’, Spain). |
| --- | --- |

—

Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.; Aeronova S.L.U.; and León Activos Aeronáuticos , S.L.U. (together ‘Air Europa’, Spain).

IAG acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Air Europa.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for IAG: holding company of airlines British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus, and Level; |
| --- | --- |

—

for IAG: holding company of airlines British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus, and Level;

| — | for Air Europa: airline serving primarily destinations in Europe and South America. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Air Europa: airline serving primarily destinations in Europe and South America.

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.9637 — IAG/Air Europa

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

---
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

August 16, 2010 

ERRATUM 

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2010-1102,-1103 

IN RE BRIMONIDINE PATENT LITIGATION 

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

ALLERGAN, INC., 

v. 

EXELA PHARMSCI INC. and EXELA PHARMSCI 

PVT., LTD., 

 and 

APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP., 

 

Decided: May 19, 2010 

Precedential Opinion 

______________________ 

Please make the following change: 

Page 11, footnote 1, lines 9-10, the text should be 

changed to read 

Dose Response Study” (“Derick”). The dissent 

characterizes that article
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                    17,286,308.97      16,963,950.81         0.00        484,678,049.19
AR                             0.61             100.00         0.00                  0.00
B1                       239,516.29               0.00         0.00          6,497,000.00
B2                       143,702.39               0.00         0.00          3,898,000.00
B3                       105,398.96               0.00         0.00          2,859,000.00
B4                        57,510.46               0.00         0.00          1,560,000.00
B5                        57,510.46               0.00         0.00          1,560,000.00
B6                        66,861.33               0.00         0.00          1,820,781.04
X                        969,808.04               0.00         0.00                  0.00

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20516]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 22, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 16, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service 
Contract 201 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-130, CP2021-135.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-20516 Filed 9-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.1

Dover Motorsports, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dover Motorsports, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Denis McGlynn, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 7, 2008                           
|                                               
|/s/ Denis McGlynn                              
|Denis McGlynn                                  
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in
such a filing.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40033 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jose Miguel Ramirez**

**- Rodriguez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7 : 20

- CR

- 27

- 1

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Miguel Ramirez

- Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez

- Rodriguez has filed a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 21-40033 Document: 00515992711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021No. 21

- 40033

2 response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Ramirez

- Rodriguez’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the ap peal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Ramirez

R o driguez ’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is **DENIED**

. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998). Case: 21-40033 Document: 00515992711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
EXHIBIT 21

                 REMINGTON PRODUCTS COMPANY, L.L.C. SUBSIDIARIES


Remington Products Australia Pty., Ltd.
800 Wellington Road
Rowville
Victoria 3178, Australia
Tel:  011 613 9751 5522
Fax: 011 613 9751 5523

Remington Products New Zealand Ltd.
2 Ngaire Avenue
Newmarket
Auckland 1, New Zealand
Tel:  011 649 529 0081
Fax: 011 649 529 0082

Remington Products (Canada) Inc.
61 Amber Street
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 3J7
Tel:  905 470 9400
Fax: 905 470 9405

Remington Consumer Products Limited
Watermans House, Watermans Court
Kingsbury Crescent, The Causeway
Staines, Middlesex, UK TW18 3BA
Tel:  011 44 1784 411411
Fax: 011 44 1784 411412

Remington Consumer Products Limited
29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2
New Nangor Road, Dublin 22, Ireland
Tel:  011 353 1 460 4711
Fax: 011 353 1 460 4714

Remington Products Company GmbH
Niederlassung Deutschland
Siemenstrasse 7
D-88499 Riedlingen, Germany
Tel:  011 49 7371 93250
Fax: 011 49 7371 932530

Remington Capital Corporation

Remington Rand Corporation

Remington Licensing Corporation

Remington Corporation, L.L.C.
60 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
# C_2021018EN.01004101.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/41 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Notice regarding the application of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures in force in the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom and the possibility of a review (2021/C 18/11) On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the Union. The Union and the UK jointly agreed on a transition period during which the UK remained subject to Union law ending on 31 December 2020 ( 1 ). The end of the transition period has the following consequences for existing trade defence measures and ongoing investigations. All anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures in force apply from 1 January 2021 only to imports into the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union. Should any investigations pending on 1 January 2021 lead to measures, these will apply only to imports into the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union ( 2 ). Aspects of EU trade defence in relation to Part 3 of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol will be the subject of a separate notice. Furthermore, without prejudice to Article 11 (3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 ( 3 ) and Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 ( 4 ), the Commission gives notice that it is also prepared to review anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures where any interested party so requests and submits evidence that the measures would have been significantly different if they had been based on information excluding the United Kingdom. In this regard, the withdrawal of the UK per se, in the absence of any such additional evidence, is not a sufficient basis for a review to be initiated. Interested parties are invited to visit the DG Trade’s trade defence website for further information: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/ ( 1 )  Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 1). ( 2 )  As to safeguards, there is only one existing measure (on certain steel products) and it continues to apply as of 1 January 2021 only to imports into the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union, although at an adjusted level and also, as from this date, against imports from the United Kingdom (see Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2037 of 10 December 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ L 416, 11.12.2020, p. 32). ( 3 )  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21). ( 4 )  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55).

---
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 requested 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9389]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6578-9]


Proposed Administrative Settlement Under Section 122(h) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
Regarding the U.S. Radium Superfund Site, Orange, NJ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative settlement and request for 
public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is 
proposing to enter into an administrative settlement to resolve certain 
claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA'') Notice is being 
published to inform the public of the proposed settlement and of the 
opportunity to comment. This settlement is intended to resolve Monique 
D'Onfrio's liability for certain response costs incurred by EPA at the 
U.S. Radium Superfund Site in Orange, New Jersey.

DATES: Comments must be provided on or before May 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway--17th 
Floor, New York, NY 10007, and should refer to: In the Matter of the 
U.S. Radium Superfund Site: U.S. Radium Administrative Settlement, 
under section 122 (h) of CERCLA, U.S. EPA Index No. II-CERCLA-02-2000-
2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York, NY 
10007; Attention: Virginia A. Curry, Esq. (212) 637-3134, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abc8ded9d9d285ddc2d9ccc2c5c2caebcedbca85ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3a0b6b1b1baedb5aab1a4aaadaaa283a6b3a2eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 122(i)(1) of 
CERCLA, notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement 
concerning the U.S. Radium Superfund Site located in Orange, New 
Jersey. Section 122(h) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to settle certain 
claims for costs incurred by the United States when the settlement is 
in the public interest and has received the approval of the Attorney 
General. EPA permanently relocated Monique D'Onfrio, the owner of a 
property within the U.S. Radium Site, to facilitate the remediation of 
the Site. Monique D'Onfrio has agreed to sell the Site property after 
it has been cleared up and to give EPA the net sale proceeds in partial 
reimbursement of response costs incurred at the Site.

    Dated: April 5, 2000.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 00-9389 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jon A. DeLuca, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
quarterly 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

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying
officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2007



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Jon A. DeLuca            
|Jon A. DeLuca                
|President and                
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Knowings, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered on February 23, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
#### LEVENGSTON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Eirst Department.

May. 1896.)

Action by Henry M. Levengston against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and another.

PER CURIAM.

The property which is the subject of this action is situated something over 200 feet east of Third avenue on East Thirty-Fourth street. It consists of two houses, Nos. 217 and 219, on the north side of the street, each parcel being 18 feet and 9 inches wide and 98 feet and 9 inches deep. Before the coming of the elevated railroad, the houses were rented to tenants of a high class, and the court would have been warranted, from the testimony, in finding that the yearly rents were $1,350 and $1,400. The testimony also warranted the finding that, after the operation of the elevated railroad began, there was a diminution of the rent to $600 a year, and that the value of the property had diminished in proportion. Subsequent to that time there has been a gradual increase in the amount of rentals and the value of the property, but not such as would have been warranted by the general increase in values of that neighborhood not subject to the depressing influences of the elevated roads. The court allowed for rental value of the two buildings $2,-506.86, being at the rate of $120 a year on each house for six years, and fixed the diminution of the fee value at $3,000. Upon a careful consideration of the evidence, we think that this judgment is sustained by the facts made to appear, and for that reason it is affirmed, with costs.