alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:




 



   

 

 

  

 

 

 

    

Allegro aperto

Oboe Solo



Konzert C-Dur für Oboe und Orchester

KV 314 W.A. Mozart



     







   

 



      

37



    

  





        

 

  

       





 



 



40





  







  







  







  



 



 



 



 

 



 

 





 

 



 



 



 

 



 

 





 



43

 







    









  

















46







 

    







 





  







































 









51 

 





  

















    





      





  

 

 

 





   







  





56  



  





 



   

        



     





   



   



  

60











   





   



 

         





   





64         



   



   

   







  

 

    





     

    







     

67





 

 







            



 



70





 







 







 



 

 

 

 







   



 

  

73

  




EXHIBIT 32.1

PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three-months ended April 1, 2006 (the Report), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

May 16, 2006



By:

/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00324- CV

1995 P rowler Travel Trailer , et al., Appellants

v. State of Texas, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F MI LAM CO UNTY, 20TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 34,1 80, H ONO RAB LE ED MAGRE, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The cler k’s rec ord in this appea l was due in this Co u rt o n M ay 1 , 2011. On J une 27, 2011, Stephen Gar diner was notified that no cler k’s rec ord had been filed due to his failure to pay or make arr ang ements to pay the district cler k’s fee for prepa

ring the cler

k’s record. The notice reque sted that Gar diner make arr ang ements for the cler k’s rec ord and submit a status r eport reg arding this appea l by J uly 7, 2011. Gar diner has not filed a status repor t or otherwise responde d to this C ourt’s notice.

I f the trial court cler

k fails to f

ile the cler

k’s rec ord due to a

ppellant’s failure to pa

y
or make arr ang ements to pay the cler k’s fee for prepa

ring the rec ord, the appellate court may dismiss the appea l for want of prosec ution unless the appellant was entitled to proce ed without pay ment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Be cause Gar diner has failed to pay or make arr ang ements to pay the cler k’s fe e for

prepa ring the cler

k’s re cord, this appe al is dismis sed for want of pr osecution._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Aug ust 9, 2011

2
IN 

### THE SUPREME COURT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT CHARYL D. 

### BERRIEN, : No. 97 MM 2019 

### Respondent

v. 

### ANTHONYJ. PARKER, Petitioner 

### ORDER PER 

### CURIAM AND NOW, this25th 

### day of 

### November, 2019,the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

### Allowance of

### Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is 

### DENIED.
# C_2021459EN.01001301.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/13

---

EUROPEAN BANKING AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/13)

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

https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/About%20Us/Budget%20and%20Accounts/2020/1016592/EBA%202020%20Annual%20Accounts_signed.pdf

---
# C_2021413EN.01000301.xml

| 12.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10453 - Blackstone/Francisco/Dynamo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 413/03)

On 7 October 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 32021M10453. 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 32021M10453. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# L_2013281DE.01002901.xml

| 23.10.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 281/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 281/29

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 4/2009 des Rates vom 18. Dezember 2008 über die Zuständigkeit, das anwendbare Recht, die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen und die Zusammenarbeit in Unterhaltssachen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 7 vom 10. Januar 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 7 vom 10. Januar 2009

Seite 61, Anhang VI, Nummer 6.1.1:

anstatt:

„... Kapitel VI Abschnitt 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 4/2009“

muss es heißen:

„... Kapitel IV Abschnitt 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 4/2009“.

---
#### Richard BERNARD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74526.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender *&*Associates, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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 **

Richard Bernard, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for suspension of deportation as a battered spouse, and denying his motion to reopen. *669We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations, *Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bernard failed to establish he was battered or subject to extreme cruelty by his former spouse. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(3) (repealed 1996); *cf. Hernandez,*345 F.3d at 840-41.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bernard’s motion to reopen, because his new evidence addressed only hardship resulting from removal and did not address the dispositive finding that Bernard failed to show he had been subjected to extreme cruelty or battery, and he therefore could not establish prima facie eligibility for suspension of deportation as a battered spouse. *See Singh,*295 F.3d at 1039 (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FIRST AMENDMENT                      Exhibit 10
                                       TO
                                 RIDGESTONE BANK
                    EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT
                                       FOR
                                 CHRISTINE LAKE

     THIS AMENDMENT executed on this 24th day of April, 2002, by and between
RIDGESTONE BANK, a state commercial bank located in Brookfield, Wisconsin (the
"Company") and Christine Lake (the "Executive").

     The Company and the Executive executed the Ridgestone Bank Executive
Incentive Retirement Agreement dated October 20, 1998 (the "Agreement").

     The undersigned hereby amends, in part, said Agreement for the purpose of
changing the Normal Retirement Age, the incentive award and the number of
installments of the benefit, therefore:

          Article 1, Section 1.1.7 shall be amended as follows:

          1.1.7  "Normal Retirement Age" means the Executive's 60th birthday.

          Article 2, Section 2.1 shall be amended as follows:

          2.1    Incentive Award. On December 31 of each Plan Year, the Company
     shall credit to the Deferral Account the Executive's Incentive Award for
     such year. The Incentive Award shall be as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  -----
Year      2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
-------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  -----
<S>      <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Amount   10,675  11,102  38,400  40,800  43,200  44,400  48,000  51,600  56,400  58,800  9,800
-------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  -----
</TABLE>

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Incentive Award is subject to change at the
sole discretion of the Board.

          Article 4, Normal Retirement Benefit, Section 4.1.2 shall be amended
     as follows:

          4.1.2  Payment of Benefit. The Company shall pay the benefit to the
     Executive in 12 equal monthly installments commencing on the first day of
     the month following the Executive's Normal Retirement Date and continuing
     for the life of the Executive, but in any event, until a total of 263
     additional monthly payments have been made to the Executive or to the
     Executive's beneficiary. The Company shall credit interest at the annual
     rate of 8.5%, compounded monthly, on the remaining account balance during
     any applicable installment period.

     IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Executive and the Company have agreed to this
First Amendment.

Executive:                              Company:

                                        RIDGESTONE BANK

/s/ Christine V. Lake                   By  /s/Paul E. Menzel
---------------------------------          -------------------------------------
Christine Lake                          Title  President
                                              ----------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

RICKY ODIS BYERS,

Respondent.

Docket Number: 2023-0088

Enforcement Activity Number: 75E5680

CONSE NT RDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT AND CANCELINGHEARING

On September 1,2O23, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Consent Order Approving

Settlement Agreement to be approved as a settlement ofthe case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.r

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

and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. i 20.502.2

W'HEREFORE,

I The parties submitted two copies ofthe Settlement Agreement, each signed separately by the respective party. Upon review, the

language is identical in both agreements, and the parties have agreed to identical terms.

I Under the terms ofthe settlement, the parties agree the outright suspension period of nine (9) months will be stayed during a

twelve (12) month settlement period. Paragraph 2 ofthe Seftlement Agreement, however, states, "... rsrocar.'aa will be STAYED

for a period oftwelve ( l2) months..." [Emphasis added.] Based on the terms and conditions set forth in paragraphs 2. 3, and 6 of

the agreement. the tenn "revocation" should be replaced with the phrase "period ofoutright suspension" a^s appropriate for the

Settlement Agreement submitted. 

I

YS
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the hearing scheduled to begin on September 6,2023, in Mobile,

Alabama. is CANCELLED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, to ensure a complete and accurate record of this case, the parties

shall submit a single, complete copy ofthe Settlement Agreement signed and dated by both parties on or

before September 29, 2023.

Done and dated September l, 2023,

Baltimore, Maryland

HON. LINEKA N. UIJANO

2

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADIVTINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 12/13/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM H. COKLEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

LARRY EMERY; GALE NORTON, 

Attorney General of the 

State of Colorado,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-1130

(D.C. No. 94-Z-1168)

(Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

William H. Cokley filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He contends that he was unconstitutionally held to be an

habitual criminal because the state failed to prove a third prior offense as required

by the Colorado statute. The state court procedurally barred Mr. Cokley from

raising this issue because he didn’t raise it within the Colorado statute of

limitations governing post conviction claims. The district court in the present

action held that Mr. Cokley’s federal habeas claim was procedurally barred

because he failed to establish cause for the default in state court and actual

prejudice as a result of the alleged constitutional violation. The district court

held further that Mr. Cokley had failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a

fundamental miscarriage of justice so as to bring him within the exception to the

cause and prejudice standard. 

The sole issue Mr. Cokley asserts on appeal is that the district court erred

in holding he failed to establish a miscarriage of justice sufficient to avoid the

procedural bar. Mr. Cokley contends he has established his actual innocence of

the charge of being an habitual criminal because “the prosecution failed to sustain

its burden of proving the existence of 3 prior felony convictions.” Appellant’s

Opening Brief at p. 3, ¶ 5. The state correctly points out Mr. Cokley did not

assert in the court below and does not assert here that he did not commit the third

felony he questions, only that the prosecution failed to prove he committed it. 
-3-

Thus, the district court was correct in concluding that Mr. Cokley has failed to

meet his burden of establishing actual innocence of the third felony.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Christian J. Moran

Mr. Moran was appointed as Special Master on December 8, 2005. He entered duty on January 17, 2006.

Before his appointment, Mr. Moran worked for five years as a Trial Attorney in the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch. Mr. Moran represented the United States at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Court of Federal Claims in cases involving government contracts, military and civilian personnel, and veterans' benefits.Previously, Mr. Moran served as a law clerk to Judge Edward J. Damich at the United States Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Moran also was an associate with the firm Spinella & Jaffe, P.C., in Hartford, Connecticut. Mr. Moran's practice focused on representing plaintiffs in personal injury, workers' compensation and civil rights actions. Mr. Moran began his legal career as a law clerk to the judges of the Connecticut Superior Court.

Mr. Moran graduated from the University of Connecticut School of Law with honors. In law school, Mr. Moran won the American Jurisprudence awards for Evidence and Federal Courts. Before beginning law school, Mr. Moran served as a full-time volunteer house parent in Boys Hope (now Boys Hope / Girls Hope). He received his undergraduate degree from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, with honors.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021348EN.01000501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/5 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10414 — Apollo Management/AS Graanul)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 348/04)

1.

On 23 August 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021348EN.01000501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Apollo Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | AS Graanul Invest (‘Graanul’ Estonia). |

Apollo acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Graanul.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Apollo Managment: global asset management and portfolio investments, i.a. in education, insurance, financial services, lighting and leisure businesses, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Graanul: it operates biomass and biofuel production facilities, combined heat and power plants and bioenergy plants in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the USA. |

3.

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

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021348EN.01000501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

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

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

M.10414 — Apollo Management/AS Graanul

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

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

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

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

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021348EN.01000501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021348EN.01000501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         829,063
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,917,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (741,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    17,588,885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               38,001,320
<PP&E>                                         7,041,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,711,436)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 57,714,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,490,809
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    336,660
<COMMON>                                       2,685
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,843,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   57,714,713
<SALES>                                        113,571,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,571,475
<CGS>                                          79,036,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,861,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,700,388)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,972,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,951,447)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,021,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                181,559
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,202,951
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.19



</TABLE>