alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014131EN.01000101.xml

| 30.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.7054 — Cemex/Holcim Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 131/01

On 23 April 2014, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

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

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301) or by post, under reference No M.7054 — Cemex/Holcim ASSETS, to the following 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

---
Willie SCOTT, Jr., petitioner, v. Connie HORTON, Warden.

No. 17-6051.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William J.
Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 result of
               operations of the Company.



                                                   /s/ William J. Campbell
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

April 29, 2003
In Re Michael A. SVEUM, petitioner.

No. 17-5872.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/23/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      141,654
COMMITMENTS
  39,654   29,425   19,599   66,374   67,601  125,627  116,625   16,027   25,029

CHANGES FROM 03/16/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,856)
   1,322    2,782      154    2,171    1,353    3,647    4,289      209     -433

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    28.0     20.8     13.8     46.9     47.7     88.7     82.3     11.3     17.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      171)
      48       32       52       57       57      134      127
```

----

Updated March 26, 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHEIKH MUFTII EL’ ALI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FRED GREER; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15702

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00300-GEBJFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Sheikh Muftii El’Ali appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

FILED

JUL 31 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed El’Ali’s action because El’Ali failed to

exhaust administrative remedies and failed to demonstrate that administrative

remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,

85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires

adherence to applicable procedural rules); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-

26 (9th Cir. 2010) (where defendant establishes failure to exhaust, burden shifts to

plaintiff to prove that administrative remedies were unavailable to him).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying El’Ali’s motion for

a temporary restraining order because El’Ali failed to demonstrate a strong

likelihood of success on the merits. See Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351

F.3d 1291, 1297-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth the standard of review and

criteria for preliminary injunctive relief).

We reject El’Ali’s contention that the district court should have granted

leave to amend. 

AFFIRMED. 

2 13-15702
Luis RAMOS, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

*998Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4479 

To temporarily provide Commonwealth-only transitional worker permits for 

workers in construction occupations involved in disaster recovery, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, 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 temporarily provide Commonwealth-only transitional 

worker permits for workers in construction occupations 

involved in disaster recovery, 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 ‘‘Disaster Recovery 

5 Workforce Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION WORKER PERMITS. 

7 Section 6(d)(3) of the Joint Resolution entitled ‘‘A 

8 Joint Resolution to approve the ‘Covenant To Establish 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4479 IH

1 a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Po2 litical Union with the United States of America’, and for 

3 other purposes’’ (48 U.S.C. 1806) is amended by adding 

4 at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(E) TYPHOON RECOVERY.— 

6 ‘‘(i) PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION

7 WORKERS.—Notwithstanding any numer8 ical cap set forth in subparagraph (B) for 

9 each of fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022, 

10 the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 

11 increase by 3,000, for each such fiscal 

12 year, the total number of aliens who may 

13 receive a permit under this section for 

14 Construction and Extraction Occupations 

15 (as defined by the Department of Labor as 

16 Standard Occupational Classification 

17 Group 47–0000). 

18 ‘‘(ii) EXCEPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION

19 WORKERS.—Subparagraph (D)(v) shall not 

20 apply to an alien who receives a permit de21 scribed in clause (i) for any fiscal year de22 scribed in such clause.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Michael Martin SANDERS, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-8988.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Jeffrey M. Stibel

Jeffrey M. StibelPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: May 10, 2007
 30
Paul M. DAUGERDAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1149.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8565
JEROME WILLIS LOWERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Superintendent; OFFICER CASH; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prison; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-446-3-MU) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Willis Lowery, Appellant Pro Se. 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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lowery v. Jackson , No. CA-95-446-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      37,292,000
<SECURITIES>                                10,154,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,509,000
<PP&E>                                       5,508,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,109,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,992,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,190,000
<BONDS>                                      1,526,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,500,000
<COMMON>                                        42,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,571,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,992,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               900,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,308,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             220,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (22,319,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (22,319,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,319,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)
        

</TABLE>
Michael PRATT, Administrator of the Estate of Eric J. Pratt, Deceased, petitioner, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, dba Amtrak, et al.

No. 17-826.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO S
. 02 - 15 - 00235 - CR NOS. 02 - 15 - 00236 - CR NOS. 02 - 15 - 00237 - CR NOS. 02 - 15 - 00238 - CR NOS. 02 - 15 - 00239 - CR NOS. 02 - 15 - 00240 - CR NOS. 02 - 15 - 00241 - CR

HAROLD SCHATZ APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 0 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO S . G850946

- A2584675, G850947

- A2584676, G850947

- A2584677, G850948

- A2584678, G850948

- A2584679, G850948

- A2584680, G850949

- A2584681

---------- 

### OPINION

---------- On August 20, 2013, Appellant Haro l d Schatz was found guilty in the municipal court of Fort Worth on seven counts of maintaining a substandard apartment building and was fined $2,000 on three of the counts , $1,2 62 on two2 counts, a nd $1,562 on the remaining two c o unts . Schatz appealed in all seven cases to the county criminal court. The county criminal court dismissed the cases on June 4, 2015, stating, “The transcript in the . . . appeals do not contain a judgment that meets the requirements of Articles 42.01 and 45.041 of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure. Without a record containing a judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.01, 45.041 (West 2006 ). On July 8, 2015, Schatz filed notices of appeal in this court. On July 22, 2015, we notified Schatz of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over these appeals. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00027(a) (West Supp. 2014) (providing that court of appeals has jurisdiction of further appeal from county court review of municipal court of record judgm ent if (a) the fine assessed is greater than $100 and the county court affirms the municipal court’s judgment or (b) the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance upon which a conviction is based). We stated that we would dismiss the appeals unless any party filed a response on or before August 3, 2015, showing that this court has jurisdiction to consider the appeals. Schatz filed a response to our letter noting that the fine in each case exceeded the statutory minimum of $100. Howev er, Schatz did not address the other statutory requirement that the county court must affirm the municipal court’s judgment. See id. The county court’s judgment in each of these appeals dismissed the appeal. Because the county court did not affirm the m unicipal court’s judgment, we lack jurisdiction over the appeals. See id. ; Flores v. State ,3 4 62 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 5, 2015, no pet.) (dismissing appeals for lack of jurisdiction when county criminal court dismissed appeal of municipal court judgments ) . We therefore dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Lee Gabriel LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. Publish DELIVERED: August 13, 2 015
Exhibit
13.1




Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002









The
undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Northcore Technologies Inc.
(the “Company”) hereby certifies that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
The Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) which this certification accompanies,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
at, and for the fiscal year ended on, December 31, 2007.




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.




Dated:March 19, 2008
            /s/ Duncan
      CopelandDuncan
      CopelandChief Executive
      Officer







This
certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company unless such
incorporation is expressly referenced within.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                                  EXHIBIT 27.2

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
                        SURGICAL LASER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                   AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (UNAUDITED)
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-30-1997 
<CASH>                                            $2,985 
<SECURITIES>                                       3,337 
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,769 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (116) 
<INVENTORY>                                        3,138 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  12,282 <F1>
<PP&E>                                            14,666 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (6,948) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    20,809 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3,176 
<BONDS>                                            6,998 <F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0 
<COMMON>                                              99 
<OTHER-SE>                                        11,016 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      20,809 
<SALES>                                            3,073 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3,073 
<CGS>                                              1,345 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,345 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,951 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    47 <F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (197) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (197) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       (197) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.02)
        
<FN>
(1)  Restated from $169 to $12,282.
(2)  Restated to include $6,998 of long term debt.
(3)  Restated to include $125 of interest income.
</FN>

</TABLE>
John Elvin TURNER, petitioner, v. NEVADA.

No. 17-6617.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**Computationof Ratio of Earnings To Fixed Charges**

 
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Successor Company**                              | ** ** | **Predecessor Company**                          | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Period from March 15 to December 31,** | ** ** | **Period from January 1 to March 14,** | ** ** | **For the Years Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
| ** **                          | ** ** | **2004**                                           | ** ** | **2004**                                         | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** | **2001** | ** ** | **2000** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)  before taxes     |       | $                                                  | (16,814    | )                                                | $          | (12,453 | ) | $ | 17,971 |   | $ | 15,244 |   | $ | 13,032 |   | $ | 10,845 |   |
| Fixed Charges:                      |       |                                               |       |                                             |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest Expense                    |       | 13,597                                             |       | 2,513                                            |       | 13,119 |   | 12,402 |   | 13,015 |   | 14,084 |   |
| Interest Factor of  Operating Rents |       | 271                                                |       | 70                                               |       | 334 |   | 290 |   | 316 |   | 313 |   |
| Total Fixed Charges                 |       | $                                                  | 13,868     |                                             | $          | 2,583 |   | $ | 13,453 |   | $ | 12,692 |   | $ | 13,331 |   | $ | 14,397 |   |
| Adjusted Earnings                   |       | $                                                  | (2,946     | )                                                | $          | (9,870 | ) | $ | 31,424 |   | $ | 27,936 |   | $ | 26,363 |   | $ | 25,242 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to  Fixed Charges |       | (a)                                                |       | (a)                                              |       | 2.3 |   | 2.2 |   | 2.0 |   | 1.8 |   |

 

----

(a) Earningsin 2004 were insufficient to cover fixed costs.

 

1

----