alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007294EN.01000601.xml

| 6.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4888 — Advent International/Domestic & General Group plc)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 294/04)

On 5 November 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### Odas E. FLAKE; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. A.R. BALLARD, individually, and as Chapter 1898 Judge Advocate; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-56505.

D.C. No. CV-04-04209-GHK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

Odas E. Flake, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Bradley B. Fagerstrom, Canoga Park, CA, pro se.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Odas E. Flake and Bradley B. Fagerstrom appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their interpleader and declaratory relief action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Sommatino v. United States,*255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ action because they failed to sufficiently allege federal subject matter jurisdiction. *See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G. & A.E.,*505 U.S. 247, 255, 112 S.Ct. 2465, 120 L.Ed.2d 201 (1992) (“a congressional charter’s ‘sue and be sued’ provision may be read to confer federal court jurisdiction if, but only if, it specifically mentions the federal courts”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David W. Wehlmann, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A(Amendment No. 2) of Grey Wolf, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  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 flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986];  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s quarter ended December 31, 2003 that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 10, 2004 By:  /s/ David W. Wehlmann    David W. Wehlmann    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 American Banknote Corporation (the
Company ) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
G. Singer, Chairman and 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Steven G. Singer
                                        Steven G. Singer
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 14, 2003


                                       38
# C_2007271EN.01000101.xml

| 14.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4880 — Allianz GI/Xchanging Transaction Bank/Fondsdepot Bank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 271/01)

On 27 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4880. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4880. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### Richard L. MEAD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-35146.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 10, 2005.

*776Richard L. Mead, Aberdeen, WA, pro se.

Gregory J. Rosen, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Richard L. Mead appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his 1999 jury conviction and sentence for rape of a child in the first degree. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The State told Mead that it would amend the information if he refused the plea agreement. Mead contends that this forced him to choose between his rights to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. The district court properly determined that the State did not unconstitutionally force Mead to waive his speedy trial rights. *See Jenkins v. Anderson,*447 U.S. 231, 236, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980) (stating that the Constitution does not forbid “every government-imposed choice in the criminal process that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights”).

Mead also contends that the sentencing court unconstitutionally infringed on his right to a jury trial by imposing a higher sentence because he exercised his constitutional right to go to trial. We disagree. The state court’s determination that the sentencing court relied upon permissible reasons for sentencing him to the high end of the standard sentencing range is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See *United States v. Carter,*804 F.2d 508, 514-15 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that while a judge may not sentence vindictively or punitively, he may have legitimate reasons for sentencing a defendant more severely, and may properly take into consideration victim impact, lack of remorse and the extent of rehabilitation).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID LAWRENCE BELINDA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 255 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40165

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REYNALDO VASQUEZ-MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-53-ALL

--------------------

August 21, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Vasquez-Mendoza appeals the 66-month sentence

imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found

in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in

his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element

of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. 

Vasquez-Mendoza acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
No. 01-40165

-2-

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). VasquezMendoza’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### Office of the Secretary

                    Section 30.13 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after taking into consideration private consumer rates of interest prevailing on the date that HHS becomes entitled to recovery. The rate generally cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities.” This rate may be revised quarterly by the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be published quarterly by the Department of Health and Human Services in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

                    The Secretary of the Treasury has certified a rate of 12                    1/4                    % for the quarter ended September 30, 2005. This interest rate will remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies HHS of any change.                

Dated: October 31, 2005.

Terry Hurst,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Finance.

[FR Doc. 05-22117 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
# L_2007055EN.01002701.xml

| 23.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 55/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/27

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 183/2007

of 22 February 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 38/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 21 February 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 21 February 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 21 February 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 shall be 359,14 EUR/tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 February 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1585/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 19).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 11, 18.1.2007, p. 4.

2

---
#### Gregorio LARA-MEZA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-15102.

D.C. No. CV-03-06516-OWW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Gregorio Lara-Meza, Taft, CA, pro se.

Thomas E. Flynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Gregorio Lara-Meza appeals pro se the district court’s summary dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the sentence of 70-months imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court properly dismissed Lara-Meza’s § 2241 petition because he has not demonstrated that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. *See Moore v. Reno,*185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (rejecting the contention that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective merely because the prisoner’s § 2255 motion might be procedurally barred).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

"As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated February 18, 2000 (except with
respect to the matters discussed in Note 8 and Note 18, as to which the dates
are March 24, 2000 and March 3, 2000, respectively) previously filed
Registration Statement Nos. 2-92383, 2-94286, 33-52059, 33-52061, 33-52353,
33-52687, 33-58756, 33-58758, 33-58760, 33-66394, 333-3871, 333-02743,
333-03871, 333-13817, 333-25141, 333-51433, 333-80007, 333-91687 and 333-91689.
It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the
company subsequent to December 25, 1999 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the date of our report."

Arthur Andersen LLP

New York, New York
March 24, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5651 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 232
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5651

                          [Report No. 111-590]

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 2010

 Ms. Herseth Sandlin introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                           September 14, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
                                                 House Calendar No. 232

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5651

                          [Report No. 111-590]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 14, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HOWARD NORWOOD, JR.

No. 7514SC458

(Filed 19 November 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Canaday, Judge.*Judgment entered 3 February 1975 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 September 1975.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jesse C. Brake, for the State.*

*Vann & Vann, by*Arthur.. *Vann, for defendant appellant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge, VAUGHN and MARTIN, Judges.

Affirmed.
#### WIGGINS v. TAYLOR

No. 101 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 79.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 31 January 1977.