alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018412EN.01000101.xml

| 14.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9054 — Broadcom/CA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 412/01)

On 12 October 2018, 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 32018M9054. 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 32018M9054. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACTRULES**

 

I, William P. Brick, certify that:

 

1.                    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.;

 

2.                    Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 12, 2004 |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |
|                        | /s/ WILLIAM P.  BRICK |
|                        | William P.  Brick, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Kendra ESPINOZA, et al., Petitioners, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.

No. 18-1195

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Motion of Agudath Israel of America for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* out of time denied.
Michael BALICE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Edward Goldthorpe, Chief Executive Officer of BC Partners Lending Corporation certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year endedDecember 31, 2018 of BC Partners Lending Corporation; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

Date: April 30, 2019 

 
/s/ Edward GoldthorpeEdward GoldthorpeChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)**
Ronald Richard BROWN, Petitioner v. WASHINGTON

No. 19-5987

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington denied.
Arletta J. KUROWSKI, Petitioner v. ESTATE OF Kenneth H. KUROWSKI, et al.

No. 19-477

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

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

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1028

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Cesar Israel Sierra Gutierrez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2002

Filed: October 9, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1999, Cesar Israel Sierra Gutierrez pleaded guilty to reentering the United

States illegally as a deported alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326. Applying

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (Nov. 1, 1998) (sixteen-level increase for defendant

previously convicted for aggravated felony), the district court sentenced Gutierrez to

seventy-eight months imprisonment and two years supervised release.

Effective November 1, 2001, the Sentencing Commission promulgated

Guidelines Amendment 632, which revamped section 2L1.2(b)'s aggravated-felony

enhancement to provide for an increase of eight to sixteen levels according to the
-2-

seriousness of the earlier aggravated felony. See U.S.S.G. App. C at 224-25;

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) (Nov. 1, 2001). In response, Gutierrez filed a pro se motion to

modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), arguing Amendment 632 had

lowered the authorized term of imprisonment. The district court denied the motion.

Gutierrez appeals, and we affirm.

Under section 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce a previously imposed sentence

when the Sentencing Commission has lowered the applicable sentencing range "if

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission." The relevant policy statement, section 1B1.10(a), states

that a reduction under section 3582(c)(2) is not consistent with the policy statement

if "none of the amendments listed in subsection (c)" applies. Amendment 632 is not

listed in subsection (c), thus Gutierrez is not entitled to relief. See Delgado v. United

States, 162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998) (amendment not listed in § 1B1.10(c) may

not be applied to reduce sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Sayre Land Company *v.*Sayre Borough, Appellant.

Argued January 11, 1956.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Citidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*535
      *Maurice L. Epstein,*Special Counsel, with him *Edward C. O’Connor,*Borough Solicitor, for appellant.

*J ames W. Cullen,*for appellee.

March 13, 1956:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Roseneield reported in 5 D. & C. 2d 294.
Kirk Patrick KESHLER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5411

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Theon SMITH, Petitioner, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS, et al.

No. 18-9507

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Domenick James HOWARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9320

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David Anthony LEE, Petitioner v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden

No. 19-6174

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Denise Barton, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Atlantic Coast Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (the“Registrant”) for the period ended June 30, 2005(the “Report”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this Report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this Report;     4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the Registrant, including its combined subsidiaries,    is made known to us by others within those entities,    particularly during the period in which this Report is being    prepared;           (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this Report based on such evaluation; and           (c) disclosed in this Report any changes in the    Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and           (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ Denise Barton       Denise Barton     Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic     Coast Entertainment Holdings, Inc.Date: September 15, 2005
24
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1182 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to repeal the authority 

to make performance-based bonus payments to States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2013 

Mr. DESJARLAIS (for himself, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. 

FINCHER, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mrs. 

LUMMIS, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South 

Carolina, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. GOWDY, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. 

FARENTHOLD, Mr. ISSA, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. ROSS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. REED, 

Mr. HARRIS, Mr. SALMON, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, and Mrs. ROBY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to repeal 

the authority to make performance-based bonus payments to States. 

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 ‘‘Stopping Needless Ad5 ditional Performance Bonuses (SNAP) Act of 2013’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1182 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) REPEALER.—Section 16 of the Food and Nutri3 tion Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is amended by striking 

4 subsection (d). 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 16(c) of 

6 the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(c)) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (4) by 

9 striking ‘‘, or performance under the performance 

10 measures under subsection (d)’’, and 

11 (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (5) by 

12 striking ‘‘, or performance under the performance 

13 measures under subsection (d)’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of the
Managed High Income Portfolio Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Managed High Income Portfolio Inc. (the "Fund") for the
year ended February 28, 1999, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
the internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



April 12, 1999
Joe CLOPTON, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 18-9134

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
10f-3 REPORT

SMITH BARNEY CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALS FUND INC.


"March 1, 2001 through February 28, 2002"

	Trade				% of
Issuer	Date	Selling Dealer	Amount	Price	Issue (1)

California State	2/28/02	"Goldman, Sachs & Co."	"10,135,000"	99.012	17.12	A
"  Public Workers Board, Lease"
"  Revenue, 5.000% due 3/1/2027"

Puerto Rico Electric	12/13/01	"Goldman, Sachs & Co."	"10,000,000"	98.422	3.12	B
"  Power Authority Revenue,"
"  Series II, 5.125% due 7/1/2026"


Puerto Rico Public	12/19/01	Morgan Stanley Dean Witter	"5,000,000"	99.483	4.89	C
  Finance Corporate Revenue
  5.7000% due 8/1/2025


(1)  Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
       25% of the principal amount of the offering.

"A-Includes purchases of $22,000,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds."
"B-Includes purchases of $12,500,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds."
"C-Includes purchases of $49,250,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds."
Virgil Lee BAILEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5767

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
10f-3 REPORT

                        HIGH YIELD BOND TRUST

                 June 1, 2000 through August 30, 2000

                        Trade                                 % of
Issuer                  Date   Selling Dealer Amount   Price  Issue(1)

Williams Communications 8/3/00 Merrill Lynch  $250,000 $100.00 0.04%
 11.70% due 8/1/08

(1) Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
    25% of the offering.



                             10f-3 REPORT

                        HIGH YIELD BOND TRUST

             September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000

                        Trade                                    % of
Issuer                  Date   Selling Dealer    Amount  Price   Issue(1)

Resolution Performance 11/9/00 Morgan Stanley DW $70,000 $98.660 0.04%
 13.50% due 11/15/10

(1) Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
    25% of the offering.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00129

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF A.C., A C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at

Law No. 1

of Parker County (CIV

- 17

- 0037)

October 2 4 , 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s Final Order of Termination. It is ordered that the

Final Order of Termination of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50948 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. JOSE PILAR SOLARES-GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-291-ALL Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing theJudgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Pilar Solares-Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50948

2 7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF Neal Jonathan BLAHER

No. D-3057

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Neal Jonathan Blaher, of Orlando, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.