alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021048EN.01000101.xml

| 11.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10095 — Crédit Agricole Italia/Credito Valtellinese)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 48/01)

On 4 January 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 32021M10095. 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 32021M10095. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2021390EN.01000901.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/9

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures

(2021/C 390/06)

1.

As provided for in Article 18(4) of 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 (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.









  Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain stainless steel bars and rods | India | Anti-subsidy duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1141 of 27 June 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India following an expiry review under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council
  (OJ L 165, 28.6.2017, p. 2) | 29.6.2022 |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain stainless steel bars and rods

India

Anti-subsidy duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1141 of 27 June 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India following an expiry review under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council

(OJ L 165, 28.6.2017, p. 2)

29.6.2022

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

1

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
# CI2021257EN.01001601.xml

| 1.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 257/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 257/16

---

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission

(2021/C 257 I/02)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’

1

The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:

| i. | updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and |
| --- | --- |

i.

updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and

2

| ii. | made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.

This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:

| i. | the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 24 June 2021 – https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/87th-management-board-web-meeting, and |
| --- | --- |

i.

the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 24 June 2021 – https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/87th-management-board-web-meeting, and

| ii. | the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg |
| --- | --- |

ii.

the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg

EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.

For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.

2

---
Exhibit 31.1
**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I,Godfrey R. Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer of Hyperion Solutions Corporation,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HyperionSolutions Corporation (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Dated: November 9, 2004
/s/ GODFREY R. SULLIVANGodfrey R. Sullivan
#### HAND v. SHAW et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

October 29, 1896.)

Action by Elwood S. Hand against William A. Shaw and others. Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. For decision on appeal,

see *41 Ñ.*Y. Supp. 16.

Chas. De Hart Brower, for the motion.

D. J. Newland, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff has failed to bring himself within the rule permitting a re-argument. Hand v. Rogers, 16 Misc. Rep. 361, 38 N. Y. Supp. 2. The point urged now was not raised at the argument, and comes too late. Besides, it is not of sufficient importance to warrant the application. The motion to dismiss the complaint was made substantially upon one ground, viz. the insufficiency of the evidence to support the cause of action, and, as it was but one motion, required but one ruling by the court; consequently but one exception was needed to review the error, if any, in denying the mo*1118tion. The case is not within the rule laid down in Myers v. Rosenback, 14 Misc. Rep. 638, 36 N. Y. Supp. 7,—that one exception to three different motions is insufficient to require a review of each separately. No ground is presented for an appeal to the appellate division. Lynch v. Sauer, 16 Misc. Rep. 362, 38 N. Y. Supp. 1. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
# C_2021018EN.01000501.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/5

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply

(2021/C 18/05)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) .

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/30 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/29 (5).

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director General of RELEX (External Relations) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is RELEX.1.C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as implemented by Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/30, and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/29.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(3)  OJ L 12 I,15.1.2021, p. 3.

(4)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 12 I,15.1.2021, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 52069-52070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20351]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 52069]]


                Notice of September 15, 2021

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or 
                Support Terrorism

                On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the 
                President declared a national emergency pursuant to the 
                International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and 
                extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 
                policy, and economy of the United States constituted by 
                the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism 
                committed by foreign terrorists, including the 
                terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York 
                and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the 
                continuing and immediate threat of further attacks 
                against United States nationals or the United States.

                On September 9, 2019, the President signed Executive 
                Order 13886 to strengthen and consolidate sanctions to 
                combat the continuing threat posed by international 
                terrorism and to take additional steps to deal with the 
                national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224, 
                as amended.

                The actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, 
                or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and 
                extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 
                policy, and economy of the United States. For this 
                reason, the national emergency declared in Executive 
                Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended, and the 
                measures adopted to deal with that emergency, must 
                continue in effect beyond September 23, 2021. 
                Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 
                National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
                continuing for 1 year the national emergency with 
                respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or 
                support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224, as 
                amended.

[[Page 52070]]

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    September 15, 2021.

[FR Doc. 2021-20351
Filed 9-16-21; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295-F1-P
Participating in the Coast 

Guard's EEO/EO complaint 

process is protected from 

retaliation under all 

circumstances.

LEARN MORE

COAST GUARD

ANTI-RETALIATION

STOP RETALIATION BEFORE IT STARTS
#### HEEPE et al., Respondents, v. MEAD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 1, 1896.)

Action by Rjchard Heepe and Otto Heepe against George W. Mead.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
#### SERGENT, Respondent, v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Adelbert G. Sergent against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company.

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

C. D. Thomas, for appellant.

Andrew G. Washbon, for respondent.

*1124PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to show that Shieve had authority from the defendant to adjust the plaintiff’s loss; that there was no such adjustment of his loss as authorized the court in holding that, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, he was entitled to the amount stated in the list or account made by Shieve; and that the court erred in excluding the evidence offered by the defendant as to the value of the property destroyed. Without discussing the other questions presented on this appeal, we think the judgment must be reversed for the error already pointed out. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to examine the question as to the validity or propriety of the order granting the plaintiff an extra allowance. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas A. ROBLEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50110.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*796Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Matthew E. Sloan, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicholas A. Roblee, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nicholas A. Roblee appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 64-month sentence for wire fraud and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, 1346, 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), and 1957. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Roblee’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal, we affirm the conviction. Because the record indicates that Roblee knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal of the sentence. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.

We AFFIRM the conviction and DISMISS the appeal of the sentence.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Pablo Angel RODRIGUEZ-ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75243.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Brigit Greeson Alvarez, Esquire, Law Office of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Don George Scrog-gin, Esquire, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: 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 **

Pablo Angel Rodriguez-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider and review de novo legal and constitutional claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Arellano’s motion to reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). It follows that the BIA did not violate due process. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

To the extent Rodriguez-Arellano raises a due process challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his direct appeal, we lack jurisdiction because he failed to file a petition for review of that decision. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### GAMBLE v. LENNON.

(Supreme Court, .Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1896.)

Action by Annie Gamble, as administratrix, against William F. Lennon.

No ■opinion. ' Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 277.