alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021475EN.01000201.xml

| 25.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10474 – NESTE / RAVAGO / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 475/02)

On 16 November 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10474. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10474. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7365** 

AARON B. ROBERTS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the State of Maryland , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 04011

- GLR )

Submitted : March 8, 2017 Decided: March 15, 2017

Before TRAXLER, AGEE , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM:
Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable u nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2 012)
. 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 petition st ates 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 Roberts 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; NIMHD Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings (R13).                    

*Date:*                         October 27, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Gateway Plaza, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Xinli Nan, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Programs, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-7784,                         *Xinli.Nan@nih.gov*.                    

Dated: September 15, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-20280 Filed 9-17-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 233 

AN ACT 

To allow reviews of certain families’ incomes every 3 years 

for purposes of determining eligibility for certain Federal 

assisted housing programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 233 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tenant Income 

3 Verification Relief Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REVIEWS OF FAMILY INCOMES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of paragraph 

6 (1) of section 3(a) of the United States Housing Act of 

7 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(a)(1)) is amended by inserting be8 fore the period at the end the following: ‘‘; except that, 

9 in the case of any family with a fixed income, as defined 

10 by the Secretary, after the initial review of the family’s 

11 income, the public housing agency or owner shall not be 

12 required to conduct a review of the family’s income for 

13 any year for which such family certifies, in accordance 

14 with such requirements as the Secretary shall establish, 

15 which shall include policies to adjust for inflation-based 

16 income changes, that 90 percent or more of the income 

17 of the family consists of fixed income, and that the sources 

18 of such income have not changed since the previous year, 

19 except that the public housing agency or owner shall con20 duct a review of each such family’s income not less than 

21 once every 3 years’’. 

22 (b) HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM.—Sub23 paragraph (A) of section 8(o)(5) of the United States 

24 Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(5)(A)) is 
3 

•HR 233 EH

1 amended by striking ‘‘not less than annually’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘as required by section 3(a)(1) of this Act’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 23, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 233 

AN ACT 

To allow reviews of certain families’ incomes every 

certain Federal assisted housing programs. 3 years for purposes of determining eligibility for
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

BRIAN JAMES LOUPE,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0369

Enforcement Activity: 7681746

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: December 8, 2023

By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

CWO Benjamin Morris

USCG Sector New Orleans

For the Respondent

Brian James Loupe, Pro Se
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about November 20, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval 

of a Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to the Administrative Law Judge for 

approval under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair, 

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the 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 of this proceeding.

______________________________________

Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Chief Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

Date: December 8, 2023
#### BAXTER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE MUT. BEN. ASS’N, Appellant (three cases).

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Actions by Mary F. Baxter against the New York State Mutual Benefit Association.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinions. Orders reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements in each case, and motion granted in each case, with $10 costs in one case only.
# C_2021459EN.01000101.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/1

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/01)

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

https://www.acer.europa.eu/the-agency/organisation-and-bodies/administrative-board/ab-official-documents

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE V. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-51, CA-95-47-4-H) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice V. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court order denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordi ngly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Un ited States v. Smith , Nos. CR-93-51; CA-95-47-4-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1996). We also deny his motion for the preparation of a transcript at Government's expense and 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.

AFFIRMED
WILLIE MATHIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0344

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 11, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baker County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Willie Mathis, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charlie Lee, Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2021091EN.01003501.xml

| 18.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/35

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10193 — OTPP/IFM/Enwave Energy Canada)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 91/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (‘OTPP’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (‘OTPP’, Canada),

| — | IFM Investors Pty Ltd. (‘IFM’, Australia), |
| --- | --- |

—

IFM Investors Pty Ltd. (‘IFM’, Australia),

| — | The Canadian business of Enwave Energy Corporation (‘Enwave Energy Canada’, Canada). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Canadian business of Enwave Energy Corporation (‘Enwave Energy Canada’, Canada).

OTPP and IFM acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Enwave Energy Canada.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for OTPP: the administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets of teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario, |
| --- | --- |

—

for OTPP: the administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets of teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario,

| — | for IFM: global investment management across infrastructure, listed equities, private capital and debt investments, on behalf of a number of Australian not-for-profit pension funds, |
| --- | --- |

—

for IFM: global investment management across infrastructure, listed equities, private capital and debt investments, on behalf of a number of Australian not-for-profit pension funds,

| — | for Enwave Energy Canada: providing district heating, cooling and generation services to customers located in Canada. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Enwave Energy Canada: providing district heating, cooling and generation services to customers located in Canada.

3.

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

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.10193 — OTPP/IFM/Enwave Energy Canada

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1045

MICHAEL L. DONNER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS G. HODGES,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-1102

MICHAEL L. DONNER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THOMAS G. HODGES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-1439-A)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
2
3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Donner, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. D. Stan Barnhill, WOODS,

ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Donner, Sr., appeals a district court order dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted and a subsequent order denying his

motion to amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

in No. 97-1045, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Donner v. Hodges, No. CA-96-1439-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 13 and Dec. 31,

1996). In light of our decision in No. 97-1045, we affirm Thomas C.

Hodges' cross-appeal of the district court's order denying Hodges'

motion to dismiss on other grounds and granting Donner's motion to

amend his complaint. 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.
4

AFFIRMED
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22-BG-698

IN RE SCOTT J. CAPRIGLIONE,

DDN: 2021-D129

An Inactive Administratively Suspended

Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 394850

BEFORE: McLeese and Howard, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED— November 23, 2022)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of New Jersey

suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year and until further order 

of the court; this court’s September 21, 2022, order suspending respondent pending 

final disposition of this proceeding and directing him to show cause why reciprocal 

discipline in the form of a one year suspension with a fitness requirement should not 

be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that 

respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit with this 

court, it is

ORDERED that Scott J. Capriglione is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year with reinstatement contingent 

on a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) 

(explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical 

discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 

194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical 

reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not 

participate); see also In re Tan, 119 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015) (imposing the functionally

equivalent reciprocal discipline of a one year suspension with a fitness requirement 

where the respondent had been suspended for one year and until further order of the 

court). It is
No. 22-BG-698

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s 

suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           411,706
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 411,706
<CASH>                                         147,885
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              17,776
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           8,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 726,168
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                190,352
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             49,895
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                        15,604
<OTHER-SE>                                     343,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   726,168
<PREMIUMS>                                      30,391
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              8,588
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      46,642
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      6,812
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             5,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,831)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F1>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> Amounts for Securities Act Industry Guide 6 and Exchange Act Industry
     Guide 4 disclosures are not provided because of the Company's loss
     reserves do not exceed one half of the consolidated common shareholders
     equity.
</FN>


</TABLE>