alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021258EN.01000101.xml

| 2.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9926 — ADI/Maxim)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 258/01)

On 31 March 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 32021M9926. 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 32021M9926. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2021459EN.01003201.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/32

---

EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/32)

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

https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/GB21DEC005%20GB%20Opinion%20and%20ETF%20annual%20accounts%202020.pdf

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2282 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of veterans 

in certain courses of education, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

enrollment of veterans in certain courses of education, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Education 

5 Priority Enrollment Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2282 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITY ENROLLMENT FOR VETERANS IN CER2 TAIN COURSES OF EDUCATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 36 of title 38, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3680A 

5 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to an educational 

8 assistance program provided for in chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, 

9 or 35 of this title or chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, 

10 if an educational institution administers a priority enroll11 ment system that allows certain students to enroll in 

12 courses earlier than other students, the Secretary or a 

13 State approving agency may not approve a program of 

14 education offered by such institution unless such institu15 tion allows a covered individual to enroll in courses at the 

16 earliest possible time pursuant to such priority enrollment 

17 system. 

18 ‘‘(b) COVERED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—In this sec19 tion, the term ‘covered individual’ means an individual 

20 using educational assistance under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, 

21 or 35 of this title or chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, 

22 including— 

23 ‘‘(1) a veteran; 

24 ‘‘(2) a member of the Armed Forces serving on 

25 active duty or a member of a reserve component (in26 cluding the National Guard); 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2282 IH

1 ‘‘(3) a dependent to whom such assistance has 

2 been transferred pursuant to section 3319 of this 

3 title; and 

4 ‘‘(4) any other individual using such assist5 ance.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

8 after the item relating to section 3680A the following new 

9 item: 

‘‘3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998, AND THE YEAR TO DATE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,929
<SECURITIES>                                    16,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                       123
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,984
<PP&E>                                           4,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                     909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,213
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,601
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,013
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,404)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,404)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.93)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian W. Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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/ Brian W. Dunham                  
|Brian W. Dunham                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|May 8, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. Coast Guard 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

CG-5800C (08/14)

Complainant: 

 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

v. 

Respondent:

For Docketing Center Use Only:

Coast Guard Enforcement Activity Number:

Type or print name Signature Date

Docket Number:

20 -

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given to the Coast Guard Representative and the U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Hearing 

Docket Clerk that Respondent appeals the Administrative Law Judge's decision dated: . 

Please select issue(s) appealed:

The appeal will follow the procedural requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.1001 Subpart J- Appeals.

Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.

Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent and public policy.

Whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion.

The ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualification.

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

1) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the Coast Guard Representative by:

2) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the ALJ Docketing Center by:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Type or print name Signature Date

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

3) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the assigned Administrative Law Judge by:

 Privacy Act Statement 

 

The legal authority for the collection of information on this form is authorized by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The information provided will be 

used to advocate your position in this administrative proceeding. Unless part of mandatory discovery, submission of the information on this form is voluntary. 

You are solely responsible for the manner in which you want to present your own case. This document will become part of the official record, which can be 

viewed by the public. 33 C.F.R. § 20.903.
EXHIBIT
4(8)


 


STATE OF ISRAEL

MINISTRY OF FINANCE


 


ACCOUNTANT GENERAL


 


June 30, 2021


 


CONSENT


 


Re: Registration Statement of

State of Israel on Schedule B


 


I, Yali Rothenberg, Accountant General of the
Ministry of Finance of the State of Israel, hereby consent to the reference to the Accountant General under the caption “Official
Statements” in the Prospectus of the State of Israel included in the Registration Statement filed by the State of Israel on the
date hereof with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments or supplements thereto.


 





	 	THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MINISTRY OF FINANCE
	 	 
	 	/s/ Yali Rothenberg
	 	 
	 	Yali Rothenberg
	 	Accountant General
	 	Ministry of Finance
	 	 
	Jerusalem, Israel	 



 






    1
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**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 annual report of Capital Growth Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Thomas G.Hudson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Darin
      P.McAreavey, the Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
      certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to l8 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.




Dated:
      May 4, 2007


By:
            /s/
                Thomas G. HudsonThomas
                G. HudsonTitle: Chief
                Executive Officer




By:
            /s/
                Darin P. McAreaveyName: Darin
                P. McAreaveyTitle: Chief
                Financial and Accounting Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.
# C_2021266EN.01000101.xml

| 6.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10312 — Astorg Asset Management/Solina)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 266/01)

On 28 June 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 32021M10312. 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 32021M10312. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7329

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STEPHANIE RENE POWERS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00200-NCT-2;

1:09-cv-01012-NCT-PTS)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephanie Rene Powers, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephanie Rene Powers seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Powers has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
* 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. 96-40334

Conference Calendar

 

CLIFFORD COLE, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:91-CV-128

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clifford Cole, Jr., Texas state prisoner #457974, appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Cole argues that the

district court erred by holding that he had failed to show cause

for his procedural default because the state court of appeals had

misinterpreted state law and because his trial counsel had failed

to make a contemporaneous objection. We have reviewed the record
No. 96-40334

-2-

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Michael Paul T., Respondent, v Thomas R., et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Michael R. R. et al., Appellants.

On July 2, 1985 Michael T. commenced a habeas corpus proceeding against the maternal grandparents for custody of his son, and on August 7, 1985 the maternal aunt and uncle, Michael and Barbara R., petitioned for custody. A hearing was held in Supreme Court on August 28, 1985, and on March 28, 1986 Supreme Court ruled that extraordinary circumstances had not been shown, so that the court could not reach the issue of the best interests of Eric, in accordance with *Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys*(40 NY2d 543). The court awarded custody of Eric to the father, Michael T.

The court found that after Suzanne moved to New York, Michael persisted in attempting to convince her that they should marry and settle in Colorado, where he had favorable employment opportunities, and that he made at least three trips to New York to discuss this and see Eric. Michael sent Eric gifts and maintained contact by telephone. The court *971found that the record failed to establish surrender of custody to a nonparent, abandonment, or unfitness of the father, and noted that although Michael never supported Eric, support was neither requested nor required.

The court erred in failing to consider that *Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (supra,*pp 544, 550) explicitly held that prolonged separation of parent and child for most of the child’s life is a significant consideration in determining that extraordinary circumstances exist, along with the parent’s lack of an established household of his own, his unwed state, and the attachment of the child to the custodian. We find that the circumstances here are within the ambit of "unfortunate or involuntary extended disruption of custody, or other equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstance which would drastically affect the welfare of the child” *(Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra,*p 549). We remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing before a different Judge to determine what custodial arrangement would now be in Eric’s best interest. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.— custody.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST COMMONWEALTH, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER
30, 1997, AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         10,336 
<SECURITIES>                                        0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,841      
<ALLOWANCES>                                      352      
<INVENTORY>                                         0     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,420           
<PP&E>                                          3,927          
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,161        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,552          
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,915        
<BONDS>                                             0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0     
<PREFERRED>                                         0     
<COMMON>                                            4     
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,406           
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,552             
<SALES>                                             0              
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,838              
<CGS>                                               0              
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37,702              
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0           
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0           
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,136           
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,696          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,440          
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0          
<CHANGES>                                           0      
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,440     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.65     
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.65     
        

</TABLE>