alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011165EN.01000101.xml

| 7.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6132 — Cargill/KVB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 165/01

On 29 April 2011, 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 32011M6132. 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 32011M6132. 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

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BARBARA CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00015-MP -GRJ

CR BARD INC,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Consent Motion to Stay Pending a Ruling on

Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. This case is one of a number of

pending federal cases in which plaintiffs seek relief in connection with the implantation of

various models of the Avaulta® Biosynthetic Support System. The Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) ordered that centralization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1407 was appropriate for the litigation concerning allegations of defects in the various models of

the Avaulta® Biosynthetic Support System. The MDL Panel transferred and assigned the

litigation to Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia. In re: Avaulta

Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2187 (S.D.W.V.). Pursuant to

Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

Bard has notified the Panel that this case qualifies as a potential “tag-along” action. As a result,

the parties expect that the case will soon be transferred to MDL No. 2187 pending in the

Southern District of West Virginia. Accordingly, it is hereby
Page 2 of 2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Consent Motion to Stay, Doc. 5, is GRANTED. 

2. This matter is STAYED pending a decision on transfer by the MDL Panel.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00015-MP -GRJ
# CE2010298EN.01021502.xml

| 4.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 298/215 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 298/215

---

Corrigendum to the minutes of the sitting of 23 June 2010

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 257 E of 24 September 2010
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 257 E of 24 September 2010

2010/C 298 E/06

On page 305, point ‘9. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (17 June 2010) (debate)’, second paragraph:

for:

‘Herman Van Rompuy (President-in-Office of the Council) et José Manuel Barroso (President of the Commission) made the statements.’,

read:

‘Herman Van Rompuy (President of the European Council) and José Manuel Barroso (President of the Commission) made the statements.’.

---
<page>
					  EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Managed
Futures HV, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:    /s/Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		November 20, 2008
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE
                           (As Restated, See Note 2)


                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                              ------------------------------
                                                 1996               1995
                                              -----------        -----------
Pro Forma Net Loss (In thousands)             $   (4,114)        $   (8,677)
 
                                            PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE-BASIC

Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares-Basic         6,783,078          6,783,078
                                              ==========         ==========
  Pro forma net loss per share-Basic          $    (0.61)        $    (0.12)
                                              ==========         ==========

                                           PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE-DILUTED

Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares-Basic         6,783,078          6,783,078
Dilutive effect of shares under employee
  stock plans*                                        --                 --
                                              ----------         ----------
Weighted average common shares-Diluted         6,783,078          6,783,078
                                              ==========         ==========
Pro forma net loss per share-Diluted          $    (0.61)        $    (0.12)
                                              ==========         ==========


* Common stock equivalents were not included as their effect would be
  anti-dilutive.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 amended quarterly report of Novagen Solar Inc. on Form
10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  March  31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Fidel Thomas, President,
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Principal Accounting
Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)     The  Report  fully  complies  with  the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.




Date: May 14,2010                             By /s/ Thomas Mills
                                              Thomas Mills
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer, and
                                              Principal Accounting Officer
|   | 1.   The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2.   The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                               |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                               |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ James      Lay                            |   |
|   |   | James      Lay                                     |   |
|   |   | Interim      President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   |  Dated:      May 15, 2009                     |   |
#### J. A. PEACOCK for Himself and on Behalf of any other Taxpayers of SCOTLAND COUNTY v. COUNTY OF SCOTLAND and SIDNEY D. SMITH, R. F. McCOY, ED McLAURIN, JESSE SNEED, and JAMES A. GIBSON, constituting the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF SCOTLAND.

(Filed 19 December 1963.)

Injunctions § 8~

&u aotdon ito enjoin the holding of a county-wide election is properly die-niissecl when plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief and he does not allege that he or persons similarly situated will be irreparably injured by the hctthng of the election and no facts are esserted from which such result may be inferred.

APPEAL by plaintiff from MoKinnon, J., Oeto~er 1963 Civil Se~sthon of SCOTLAND.

Bailey, Dixon & Woo ten for plaintiff.

,Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett and Henry A. Mitchell, Jr., for defendants.

Pxx CURIASI.

Plaintiff, a citizen, resident, property owner and taxpayer `of Scotland `County, on be~hatf of himself `and athens similarly situated, instituted this action to enj oia'i the `holding `of a county-wide election called `by the County Commission ens of Scotland County pur.-suant to procedure provided by Chapter 707, Session Lows 1963. The election, in accordance with said Act of the General Assembly, sub-. mits to the electorate of Scotland County proposals `for the merger of the school administrative units at the City `of Laurin~burg and Scotland County, oonstru!ction of `a new consolidated high school, issuance of hands for such `construction `and `other purposes, requirement that there be appropriated annually `from local sources funds to provide for a mithmum per student expenditure for `current school expenses, and au-t:l1'otrizati'oal. of a levy hy the County Commissioners of a supplemental school tax not to. exceed 50 cents on. $100 valuation. The complaint aft-leges that the Act in question contravenes certain provisions of the North Carolina Constitution.

A jury tri~1 wa's waived a~xI the cause wais heard upon the admi~s-sions in the p1eadin~s and faicta ~tipu1ated. The court declared itdae Act constituitionaa, refused to eaijohi the election and dismissed the ruck.i~oai.

We do nol~ reach t~he oo~stitu.tionaJ questi'onis and make no adjudication with ~eepeat thereto'. Plaintiff seeks only iinjunctive relief. His al-legatio'rss `are insufficient to invoke the equity jurisdiction ef the court. It is not alleged that plaintiff or persons similarly situated will be ir- *774reparably injured by 'the holding of the election, and no facts are assented from which such result may be inferred. *Clinton v. Ross, 226*N.C. 682, 689, 40 S.E. 2d 593. To maintain, 'an, action to enjoin an election plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that he will suffer direct injury-or that his civil or property rights will be invaded thereby. *Hill v. Comrs. of Greene,*209 N.C. 4, 182 S.E. 709.

The judgment below, in denying injunctive relief and dismissing the action, is

Affirmed.
Exhibit No. 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement on
Form S-3/A of Avenue  Entertainment  Group,  of our report dated April 10, 2001,
relating to the consolidated  balance sheet of Avenue  Entertainment Group as of
December  31,  2000  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
stockholders'  equity and cash flows for the years ended  December  31, 2000 and
1999  which  report  appears  in the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  of Avenue
Entertainment Group and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts"
in the registration statement.


Our opinion  contains an explanatory  paragraph that states that the Company has
suffered net losses from  operations,  has a working capital  deficiency and has
incurred  accumulated  losses  through  December 31, 2000.  These  factors raise
substantial  doubt about the Company's  ability to continue as a going  concern.
The consolidated  financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


KPMG LLP


New York, New York
April 10, 2001
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GEORGE RAYMOND JOHNSTON, III,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00021-MP -WCS

BALDRIDGE, BOZEMAN, BENITO EDOUARD, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, WALTER MCNEIL, GLENN E YOUNG,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 12, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, Docs. 2 and 8,

be denied and this case be remanded for further proceedings. The Magistrate Judge concluded

that the motions for a preliminary injunction “must be denied as Plaintiff has not demonstrated a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Doc. 12 at 3. Plaintiff has not objected to the

recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 12, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. The Motion for Emergency Injunction, Doc. 2, and Motion for Emergency

Temporary Injunction, Doc. 8, are DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 25, 2019

s0918

Order 

Clerk

September 25, 2019

159539

ANTHONY HART,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 159539

COA: 338171

Ct of Claims: 16-000212-MM

STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the plaintiff had failed 

to allege sufficient facts to state a constitutional-tort claim under the principles outlined 

in Canton v Harris, 489 US 378 (1989), and Bryan Co Bd of Co Comm’rs v Brown, 520 

US 397, 409 (1997). The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each 

side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan is invited to file a brief amicus 

curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in 

this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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. 02-20502 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAVIER RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-747-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Javier Rodriguez-Perez appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States afterdeportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. RodriguezPerez argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed from the statute. He asks us to vacate hisNo. 02-20502 -2- conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for resentencing under that provision.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Rodriguez-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been called into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 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). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE KILGORE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00094-MP-WCS

BLANCO, EFRIN CARBONELLE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, GRIFF, MEJIA,

MENDEZ, J MENDOZA, BILLY TAYLOR, THOSE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN TO THE

PLAINTIFF,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 15, petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to

respond to the Report and Recommendation. The motion is granted, and petitioner shall file a

response by Friday, August 19, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00094-MP-WCS Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            1378
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,378
<PP&E>                                         176,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 616,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          431,624
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,861
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,610
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,413,788
<CGS>                                        3,640,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,914,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               514,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,665,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,665,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
# C_2010266EN.01000201.xml

| 1.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5741 — CDC/Veolia Environment/Transdev/Veolia Transport)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 266/02

On 12 August 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 French 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 32010M5741. 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 32010M5741. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011180EN.01002601.xml

| 21.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/26

---

Call for proposals — MOVE/SUB/01-2011 on Road Safety

2011/C 180/16

The European Commission is planning to grant subsidies totalling the indicative amount of EUR 1 000 000 to promote road safety as announced in the 2011 work programme adopted by the European Commission.

Information on this call for proposals is available on the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/grants/index_en.htm

---