alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010160EN.01001701.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5866 — Sun Capital/Beauty Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 160/03

On 15 June 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 32010M5866. 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 32010M5866. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               | /s/ David Grossman      |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               | David Grossman          |
|               | Chief Executive Officer |
|               |                    |
|               | /s/ Ronen Twito         |
|               | Ronen Twito             |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |
|               |                    |
| Date: May 30, 2011 |                    |

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BOBBY E SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00183-MP-AK

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7, regarding the

Complaint filed by Bobby E. Solomon, Doc. 2, and the Motion to Remand filed by Michael J.

Astrue, Doc. 6. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Remand be

granted, and this cause be remanded to the Commissioner. No party has objected, and the time

for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7, is ADOPTED and

incorporated herein. 

2. The Defendant’s Motion to Remand, Doc. 6, is GRANTED. 

3. This cause is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) for further proceedings by the Appeals Council. 

4. The parties are directed to file a Status Report on or before February 19, 2010,

advising the Court of the status of the administrative proceedings, and file

additional status reports every ninety days thereafter until the administrative

proceedings are concluded. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2009
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:09-cv-00183-MP-AK

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
# C_2009208EN.01000301.xml

| 3.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 September 2009

2009/C 208/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4220 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4428 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87510 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3186 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5167 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,686 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 276,37 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7028 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1680 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2388 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1512 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7112 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5720 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0222 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1078 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0526 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 774,54 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1879 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7137 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3461 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 450,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0332 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,534 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,3921 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,426 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7048 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,3961 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,6420 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4220

JPY

Japanese yen

131,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4428

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87510

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3186

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5167

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,686

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

276,37

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7028

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1680

RON

Romanian leu

4,2388

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1512

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7112

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5720

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0222

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1078

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0526

KRW

South Korean won

1 774,54

ZAR

South African rand

11,1879

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7137

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3461

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 450,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0332

PHP

Philippine peso

69,534

RUB

Russian rouble

45,3921

THB

Thai baht

48,426

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7048

MXN

Mexican peso

19,3961

INR

Indian rupee

69,6420

---

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

1

Source

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5351 

To prohibit the enforcement of a nondisclosure agreement based on an individual’s employment in the Executive Office of the President if the disclosure of information in violation of the agreement is based on whistleblowing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2018 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Washington) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit the enforcement of a nondisclosure agreement 

based on an individual’s employment in the Executive 

Office of the President if the disclosure of information 

in violation of the agreement is based on whistleblowing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Disrupting Ac5 countability Act’’ or the ‘‘NDA Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5351 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCLO2 SURE AGREEMENTS WITH EXECUTIVE OF3 FICE OF THE PRESIDENT IF DISCLOSURE IS 

4 BASED ON WHISTLEBLOWING. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—A nondisclosure agreement based 

6 on an individual’s employment in the Executive Office of 

7 the President or the White House may not be enforced 

8 against the individual if the individual’s disclosure of in9 formation in violation of the agreement is described under 

10 section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

12 respect to a nondisclosure agreement entered into before, 

13 on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
394 S.E.2d 905

#### STATE of West Virginia v. Chester Ray GIBSON.

No. 18696.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

July 12, 1990.

T. Owen Wilkins, Sandyville, for Chester R. Gibson.

Roger W. Tompkins, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Riffe, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Attorney General’s Office, Charleston, for State of W. Va.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, rendered on December 4, 1987, wherein that court denied appellant’s motion for return of a motor vehicle seized in connection with certain criminal charges which the trial court later dismissed. In light of this dismissal, the appellee filed a response with this Court in which it confesses that such denial constitutes error and states that it has no objection to entry of judgment in favor of the appellant.

In Syllabus Point 1 of *State v. Young,*166 W.Va. 309, 273 S.E.2d 592 (1980), this Court held, *“ ‘*“In a criminal case where the State confesses error, urges that the judgment be reversed and that the defendant be granted a new trial, this Court, upon ascertaining that the errors confessed are reversible errors and do in fact constitute cause for the reversal of the judgment of conviction, will reverse the judgment and grant the defendant a new trial.” Syl. *State v. Goff,*159 W.Va. 348, 221 S.E.2d 891 (1976)’; *State v. Cokeley,*159 W.Va. 664, 226 S.E.2d 40 (1976).”

*211In the instant case, we agree that failure of the trial court to release property of the appellant seized pursuant to criminal charges which were ultimately dismissed constitutes reversible error. W.Va. Code, 62-1A-7, provides, “Property taken pursuant to the warrant shall be preserved as directed by the court or magistrate for use as evidence and thereafter shall be returned, destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court or magistrate may direct.” Following dismissal of the charges, there was no necessity for its use as evidence, and the trial court should have ordered its return to the appellant.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County is hereby reversed, and this proceeding is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
# C_2010231EN.01000602.xml

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5941 — BDMI/Dumont Venture/Learnship)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 231/03

On 23 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 German 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 32010M5941. 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 32010M5941. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Case 3:01-cr-00076-RV   Document 53   Filed 02/01/07   Page 1 of 1
# C_2009038EN.01001501.xml

| 17.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Call for proposals under the work programme of the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) Joint Programme

(2009/C 38/09)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme.

Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme

Proposals are invited for the following call: AAL-2009-2.

AAL-2009-2

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website:

http://www.aal-europe.eu

---
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-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 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 15, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STUART W. RYAN, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-336/RS-MD

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 

THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Strike and Extend Time to Take 

Plaintiff’s Deposition or in the Alternative Emergency Motion to Continue Discovery, 

Summary Judgment and Trial (Doc. 63) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 

66). The Motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Subsequent to filing this Motion, Defendant has conducted the requested 

additional three hours of deposition. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Continue 

Deposition of Plaintiff is DENIED as moot. 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED. The purported tardy disclosure of 

Plaintiff’s alleged damages occurred on May 17, 2011. From this date, Defendant 

had ten days until the supplemental three-hour deposition. This is adequate time

to prepare and to avoid prejudice. 

Case 3:10-cv-00336-RS-CJK Document 67 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 2
3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike tardy disclosure of Plaintiff’s additional alleged acts 

of retaliation is DENIED. Plaintiff does not seek damages for the acts but rather 

intends to use them as background. A more appropriate forum to address these 

acts may be future motion in limine or an appropriate objection during trial. 

4. The Motion to Continue Discovery and Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The 

Discovery Deadline, now expired, is extended to May 27, 2011 to include the 

additional deposition of Plaintiff. The deadline for filing potentially dispositive is 

fourteen days after this discovery deadline—June 10, 2011. All other dates remain 

unchanged. 

ORDERED on June 1, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00336-RS-CJK Document 67 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

In re SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT

CORP., consolidated cases. Case No. 5:11-cv-32-RS-CJK

_________________________________/

ORDER

All remaining Defendants, except for Kevin Shorette, are DISMISSED 

because of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute its claims against them. See N.D. Fla. 

Loc. R. 41.1.

ORDERED on July 25, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 208 Filed 07/25/12 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 Globotek Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) 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, Vladislav Feliksovich Tenenbaum, President 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 24, 2010
By:
//s/ Vladislav Feliksovich TenenbaumVladislav Feliksovich TenenbaumPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT LATTIMORE,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv58/RS-GRJ

PAIGE A. AUGUSTINE, Warden

of FCI Marianna,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7). 

Petitioner has not filed objections.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice because of Petitioner’s failure to

comply with an Order of the court and failure to prosecute.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on August 16, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00058-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/16/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DONNA R. HARGROVE, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11cv54-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Attorney Fees

Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 22). 

Defendant has no objection to the fee request. (See doc. 23). Upon consideration, the

court concludes that the fee request is appropriate.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (doc. 22)

is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees under EAJA in the amount of $3,757.95,

subject to any offsetting debt owed by plaintiff to the United States. If the agreement

between plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel is such that these fees are assigned to plaintiff

counsel, any fees or partial fees received by the plaintiff are to be considered held in trust

for, and payable to, plaintiff's counsel.

DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00054-MP-GRJ Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DADRIAN L. BROWN, 

Petitioner, 

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cv62-SPM/WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent. 

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the Clerk. Pending is

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus which was filed on February 16, 2011.

Doc. 1. This court's order entered March 25, 2011, granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and directed the Petitioner to file an amended petition by April 27, 2011. Doc.

5. Petitioner's copy of that order has been returned to the Clerk undelivered. A check

with both the Gadsden County Jail and the Leon County Jail reveals that Petitioner is

not housed at either facility and Petitioner has not notified the court of a new address. 

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute his own lawsuit and to keep this court

apprised of his current address. 
Page 2 of 2

Since Petitioner has not furnished the court with a new address, it is doubtful that

he will receive a copy of this report and recommendation, nonetheless, the clerk shall

forward a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at both the

Gadsden County Jail and the Leon County Jail. In the event the Petitioner does

receive a copy of this report and recommendation, the court will allow him an

opportunity to show cause why this report and recommendation should be vacated,

failing which, the Clerk shall be directed to forward the report and recommendation to

the assigned district judge. 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 18, 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 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:11cv62-SPM/WCS
# C_2010137EN.01001702.xml

| 27.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5834 — Coca-Cola Enterprises/Coca-Cola Drycker Sverige/Coca-Cola Drikker)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 137/05

On 18 May 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 32010M5834. 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 32010M5834. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---