alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010046EN.01000602.xml

| 24.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5770 — CD&R/BCA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 46/06

On 17 February 2010, 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:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5770. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5770. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cr101/MCR

DENNIS M. CARONI; GERARD M. 

DILEO; and JOSEPH GEORGE

PASTOREK, II,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

The defendants have been charged with conspiracy to dispense controlled

substances through prescriptions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) and

(b)(1)(D), and 21 U.S.C. § 846; and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The government has rested its case.

The defendants each moved orally for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence

presented is insufficient to sustain a conviction on either count of the indictment. See Fed.

R. Crim. P. 29(a). 

A motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) at the conclusion of the

government's case may only be granted if “the evidence is insufficient to sustain a

conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). The court views the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the

government. See United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 1560 (2010). The trial court's inquiry is whether a reasonable fact finder

could find the evidence sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Id.

The court ruled on the motions from the bench on November 14, 2011, and this

Case No. 3:10cr101/MCR

Case 3:10-cr-00101-MCR Document 423 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

order memorializes those rulings. Applying the standards articulated above, the court

denied each motion for judgment of acquittal with reasons articulated in full on the record.

Accordingly, for reasons stated on the record at trial, it is hereby ORDERED that the

defendants’ oral motions for judgment of acquittal (noted on the court’s docket as docs.

418, 419, 420) are DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2011.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:10cr101/MCR

Case 3:10-cr-00101-MCR Document 423 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009107EN.01001101.xml

| 9.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 May 2009

2009/C 107/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3425 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4486 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89070 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5120 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5142 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6415 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,650 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 277,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7091 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3510 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1335 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0833 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7702 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5582 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4044 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2531 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9676 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 668,53 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2542 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1583 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3582 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 915,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7216 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,185 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,5980 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,800 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8066 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5465 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,1620 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3425

JPY

Japanese yen

133,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4486

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89070

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5120

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5142

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6415

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,650

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

277,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7091

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3510

RON

Romanian leu

4,1335

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0833

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7702

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5582

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4044

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2531

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9676

KRW

South Korean won

1 668,53

ZAR

South African rand

11,2542

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1583

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3582

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 915,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7216

PHP

Philippine peso

63,185

RUB

Russian rouble

43,5980

THB

Thai baht

46,800

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8066

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5465

INR

Indian rupee

66,1620

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2010218EN.01000101.xml

| 12.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5836 — Bilfinger Berger/Hertel Group/Friday Eurotech)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 218/01

On 23 July 2010, 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:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5836. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5836. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NATASKA HOWARD , 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00408-MP-CAS

W T TAYLOR, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 16, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed. The

petitioner objected, Doc. 22, and the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions

of the Report and Recommendation to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Additionally, the petitioner filed three other motions. The first and second are motions to

supplement the petition, with attached proposed supplements. Docs. 14 (with supplement at 15)

and Doc. 20. The motions are granted, and the Court considered the proposed materials. The

third motion asks the Court to clarify that she was not charged in the Southern District of Florida

with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court has reviewed the indictment in the case,

Doc. 7 in case 1:06-cr-20177 (S.D. Fla. 2006), and the mandate of the Eleventh Circuit, Doc. 88

in that case, and agrees that no gun charge was involved. The motion for clarification, Doc. 23

in our case, is granted to the extent that this reference, which appears to be a cut-and-paste error,

is stricken from the Report and Recommendation. Otherwise, the Court agrees with the Report

and Recommendation that petitioner's petition does not fall within the savings clause of 28
Page 2 of 2

U.S.C. § 2255 and thus may not be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and

incorporated herein except as noted above.

2. Petitioner’s Motions for Request to Supplement the § 2241 motion (Docs. 14 and

20) are GRANTED. 

3. Petitioner's Motion for Clarification (Doc. 23) is granted to the extent noted

above.

4. The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is

DISMISSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 4:10-cv-00408-MP-CAS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131050 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131050 COA: 265173 Livingston CC: 02-012663-FC DUANE THOMAS PEEVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
Case 3:11-cv-00023-WS -CJK Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 12 of 12
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 Iris Biotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter        ended March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Charles D. Hess, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section     1350 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section     1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.








Date: May
      20, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Charles D. HessCharles D. Hess
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
              Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TERESA YATES and LEE YATES,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv226/RS-GRJ

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER

In accordance with the Initial Scheduling Order dated February 11, 2011

(Doc. 36), all prior hearings and deadlines are terminated.

ORDERED on February 11, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001023877
<NAME>                          Goung Hei Investment Co., Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1993
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1993
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               17
<OTHER-SE>                                           (17)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            0
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          16
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (16)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (16)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (16)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0




</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

VINCENT KEITH RAINES,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00172-MP -GRJ

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee, and the Respondent

will be directed to file a response to the Petition. 

The response shall be styled as an answer unless a motion to dismiss the

petition, in whole or in part, due to a failure to exhaust state remedies, a procedural bar,

non-retroactivity, or a statute of limitations is appropriate, in which case such ground

shall be asserted by motion. See § 2254 Rule 4 and Advisory Committee Notes (Court

may authorize Respondent to address procedural bars by way of a motion to dismiss,

“which may avoid burdening the Respondent with the necessity of filing an answer on

the substantive merits of the petition.”); § 2254 Rule 5(b). If a motion to dismiss some

or all of the claims on a procedural ground is filed, Respondent need not also file an

answer as to the merits of those claims only until the Court rules on the motion

asserting the procedural ground. See id. Respondent may respond to the merits of the

Petition without waiving the exhaustion requirement. See § 2254(b)(2) and §

2254(b)(3). 
Page 2 of 2

Petitioner may file a reply to any of Respondent's arguments, including a motion

to dismiss, within the time set by this order, but is not required to do so. § 2254 Rule

5(e).

The Court will review the record after the answer (or other motion) and

Petitioner’s reply (if any) are filed. If it does not appear that a hearing or additional

argument is warranted, then the undersigned will make appropriate disposition of the

motion or petition. If an evidentiary hearing is warranted and permitted, counsel will be 1

appointed. § 2254 Rule 8. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of the petition, Doc. 1, along with this order, on

Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Florida via certified mail,

return receipt requested. 

2. Respondent shall file an answer or other pleading on or before March 21,

2011. If voluminous exhibits or records (such as transcripts) are submitted in

support of the answer, paper copies shall be provided to the court. 

4. Petitioner shall have until April 20, 2011, to file a reply, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21 day of December 2010.

st

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Section 2254(e)(2) generally bars the court from granting an evidentiary hearing 1

if the Petitioner failed to properly develop the facts in support of his claim in state court. 

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473-74 n.1 (2007). Even where not barred by the

statute, the Court has the discretion to deny a hearing if the record refutes the

allegations or otherwise precludes relief. Id. (citations omitted). 

Case No: 1:10-cv-00172-MP -GRJ
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr71-SPM

TWON HOWARD, 

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count Two of this indictment. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the

Case 4:10-cr-00071-RH-CAS Document 70 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr71-SPM/WCS-2

Case 4:10-cr-00071-RH-CAS Document 70 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 5, 2011. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr71-SPM/WCS-2

Case 4:10-cr-00071-RH-CAS Document 70 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Adrian Liddell, the Principal Financial Officer of VYCOR
                     MEDICAL. INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that: 1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
                     September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), fully complies with the
                     requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
                     1934; and 2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                     material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
                     of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this
                     15th day of November 2010. /s/ Adrian Liddell------------------------------------Adrian LiddellPrincipal Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
                     has been provided to Vycor Medical, Inc. and will be retained by
                     Vycor Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
                     Commission or its staff upon request.