alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011003EN.01000202.xml

| 6.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5930 — JCI/Michel Thierry Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 3/04

On 22 November 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 32010M5930. 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 32010M5930. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6512

COURTNEY LYLES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN STERLING; MICHAEL MCCALL; LEWIS; FLORENCE MAUNEY; 

STEPHEN CLAYTOR; DEGEORGES, Captain; BENNETT; SWINGER; 

VALERO; TUCKER; MITCHELL; OFFICER EDGERTON; ROBINSON, 

Coach; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MISKINIS, Corporal; ROBERT OLSEN; 

TASHONDA CALDWELL,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (9:17-cv-00149-CMC)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Courtney Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE 

& MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Courtney Lyles appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge in part and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Lyles v. Sterling, No. 9:17-cv-00149-CMC (D.S.C. 

Apr. 11, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER BUSH,

Petitioner, 

vs. Case No.: 5:10cv252/RS/EMT

PAIGE AUGUSTINE, WARDEN

Respondent.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner commenced this action

by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. 1). Petitioner

subsequently filed an amended petition (doc. 8). The court later granted Respondent’s motion to

consolidate this case with case 5:10cv280/RS/EMT on July 7, 2011 (see doc. 31), and on July 19,

2011, Respondent filed a consolidated response to the allegations in both cases (doc. 32). Petitioner

was ordered to file a reply to Respondent’s response (doc. 33), which he has failed to do so. 

Subsequently, on November 28, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner to show cause

within twenty-one (21) days why this action should not be dismissed as moot due to his release, or,

alternatively, due to his failure to comply with an order of the court (doc. 36). The order was

returned as undeliverable (doc. 37). Petitioner has filed nothing with the court since August 5,

2011. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case, along with member case 5:10cv280/RS/EMT, be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for Petitioner’s failure to comply with an order of the court and failure to keep the

court apprised of his current address.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 21st day of December 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

Case 5:10-cv-00252-RS-EMT Document 38 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 5:10cv252/RS/EMT

Case 5:10-cv-00252-RS-EMT Document 38 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. JOHNSON

No. 257 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 592.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 July 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 17 July 1981.
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 Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Laufer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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/ Richard Laufer Richard Laufer Title: Chief Executive Officer   May 19, 2009
Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 3 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 4 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 5 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 6 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 7 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 8 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 9 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 10 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 11 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 12 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 13 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 14 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 15 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 16 of 17Case 1:10-cv-00233-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 11/29/10 Page 17 of 17
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2388 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2388

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the postponement 
          of certain deadlines by reason of significant fires.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2019

 Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Moran) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the postponement 
          of certain deadlines by reason of significant fires.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO POSTPONE CERTAIN TAX DEADLINES BY REASON OF 
              SIGNIFICANT FIRES.

    (a) In General.--Section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, a significant fire,'' after 
        ``federally declared disaster (as defined in section 
        165(h)(3)(C)(i))'' in subsection (a),
            (2) by inserting ``, fire,'' after ``disaster'' each place 
        it appears in subsections (a)(1) and (b), and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Significant Fire.--For purposes of this section, the term 
`significant fire' means any fire with respect to which assistance is 
provided under section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) The heading of section 7508A of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``, significant fire,'' 
        after ``federally declared disaster''.
            (2) The item relating to section 7508A in the table of 
        sections for chapter 77 of such Code is amended by inserting 
        ``, significant fire,'' after ``federally declared disaster''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to fires for which assistance is provided after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

THOMAS CASSIDY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv212-RH/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF BENEFITS

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge=s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 25. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court=s opinion. 

The Commissioner=s decision denying the plaintiff=s application for disability 

benefits is AFFIRMED. The clerk must enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 13, 2011.

Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00212-RH-EMT Document 26 Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IVAN RENE MOORE,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; ASSET
RELIANCE, INC.; CRAIG HANSEN;
EDWARD D. TESTO; GEORGE
BARBOUR; KIMBERLY MARTIN

BRAGG; THOMASINA REED; LAW
OFFICE OF THOMASINA REED; ALLEN
KING; LAW OFFICE OF ALLEN KING; DOES, 1 through 50,

Appellees. No. 21

- 55121

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv

- 05733

- FMO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2022 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Moore’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 

# FILED

MAY 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 55121

Chapter 7 debtor Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion. Ash v. Cvetkov , 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore ’s appeal

after Moore failed to file the documents required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

Procedure 8009 in a timely manner. See Fed. Bankr. R. 8003(a)(2) ( an appellant’s

failure to take steps required to prosecute an appeal, other than the timely filing of

a notice of appeal, may be grounds for sanctions, including dismissal ); Pagtalunan

v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640

- 43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to be

considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute; a district court’s

dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it

“committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (this court may

review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings

to show its consideration of the fact ors).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.

See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
| (1)   | the amended quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A of Wishart Enterprises Limited for the quarter ended February 28, 2009 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 amended quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended February 28, 2009, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Wishart Enterprises Limited |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Barbara Lamb                                                      |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                 |
| Name:  | Barbara Lamb                                                         |
|   |                                                                 |
| Title: | Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                 |
| Date:  | August 5, 2009                                                       |
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:01cr82LAC

 3:05cv100LAC

DANIEL JUAREZ

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 1, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on8/16/05 Doc.# 160

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ / Mary Maloy-Wells

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy-Wells

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 6th day of

September, 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Case was closed with judgment (doc 157) filed 2 May 2005. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:01-cr-00082-LC-MD Document 161 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 1
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 Global Holdings, Inc.. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Terrence A. Tecco, Chief Executive Officer and, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Global Holdings, Inc.Date:  November 22, 2010
By:
/s/ Terrence A. TeccoTerrence A. TeccoPresident, CEO, CFO
[No. 914]

#### R. S. GAMMANS, Appellant, *v.*M. A. ROUSSELL et al., Respondents.

Conflict of Evidence — Eindings.—Where there is a substantial conflict of evidence, the findings of the lower court will not be disturbed.

Statement not Containing all the Evidence. —Where the statement does not show that it contains all the evidence, it will be presumed that the findings were supported by the evidence.

Affeal fob Delay — Rule as to Damages Enforced.

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County.

The facts appear in the opinion.

*W. Wébsler*and *R. M. Clarice,*for Appellant.

*Ihomas E. Ilaydon,*for Bespondent.

By the Court,

Leonard, J.:

This is an action to determine the ownership and right of possession of an undivided one-sixtli part of a certain water-ditch known as the “big ditch,” in Washoe county. The case was tried by the court without a jury. The findings were all in favor of the defendants, who had judgment against plaintiff upon the merits and for their costs.

Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the grounds, first, that the findings of the court were notsustained by the evidence; second, that the judgment -was against law and the evidence; third, error in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff. The motion for a new trial was denied “upon the grounds that the statement as settled and certified after its engrossment does not show any particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and decree; that it does not show that it contains all the evidence given upon the trial, and does not disclose any error in law occurring at the' trial, excepted to by the plaintiff, that is material, or for which such finding's and decree should be set aside.” There was an attempt to put in the statement a specification of particulars in which the evidence was alleged to have been insufficient. But we need not stop to *172inquire whether or not such specifications are sufficient to justify us in considering the statement. If they are deemed sufficient upon the point that the findings are against the evidence, still the fact plainly appears that the evidence of plaintiff and defendants conflicts upon the most material questions in the case. The findings, therefore, cannot be disturbed. Besides, it does not appear that the statement contains all the. evidence; consequently, the findings will be presumed to have been supported by the evidence. The only error in law complained of, and the only specification thereof, is as follows: “The court erred in that the judgment is against law, because of plaintiffs right to the water in question, because of his title thereto being already established.” If that can be regarded as a specification of error in law, still it is useless, because it is based upon the evidence in the case, and, as before stated, it does not appear that it is all contained in the statement.' This appeal is without any merit, and in my opinion it was taken purely for delay. The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed, and each of the defendants is allowed and awarded ten per cent, on the amount of his judgment as damages for the delay occasioned.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The undersigned, Haim Mayan, the interim Chief Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer of InfoSpi, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InfoSpi, Inc. for quarter ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of InfoSpi, Inc.








Date: August 13, 2010





/s/   "Haim Mayan"Haim Mayan

Interim Chief Executive Officer





/s/   "Haim Mayan"Haim Mayan

Interim Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to InfoSpi, Inc. and will be retained by InfoSpi, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

I, Stephen H. Liu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
Arrin Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Arrin Corporation.


Date: 5/23/11                           By: /s/ Stephen H. Liu
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Stephen H. Liu
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification**


**of**


**Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Poker Magic,
      Inc. do hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:





(a)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Poker Magic, Inc. for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Poker Magic,
      Inc.





November
                14, 2008
            /s/
                Douglas PolinskyDouglas
                Polinsky*Chief
                Executive Officer*November
                14, 2008
            /s/
                Joseph A. Geraci, IIJoseph
                A. Geraci, II*Chief
                Financial Officer*