alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010182EN.01001201.xml

| 7.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5774 — Holtzbrinck/Bertelsmann/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2010/C 182/05)

1.

On 28 June 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH & Co. KG (‘Holtzbrinck’, Germany) and Bertelsmann AG (‘Bertelsmann’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Premium Vertriebs GmbH (‘Premium’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for Holtzbrinck: international media company active in trade publishing, education and science, newspaper and magazines, as well as electronic media and services, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Holtzbrinck: international media company active in trade publishing, education and science, newspaper and magazines, as well as electronic media and services,

| — | for Bertelsmann: international media company active in television, radio, publishing and other media and communication services, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Bertelsmann: international media company active in television, radio, publishing and other media and communication services,

| — | for Premium: online distribution platform for all forms of books, primarily for German language digital publishing products (‘e-books’). |
| --- | --- |

—

for Premium: online distribution platform for all forms of books, primarily for German language digital publishing products (‘e-books’).

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5774 — Holtzbrinck/Bertelsmann/JV, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).

2

---
NO. 07-04-0273-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 31, 2004

______________________________

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT BURNS MCCALL

_________________________________

FROM THE 251st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 90,595-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert B. McCall, appellant, an inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court’s

order dismissing his case for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code. We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court clerk’s record was filed with this court on June 11, 2004; by letter, that

same day, this court’s clerk gave notice to appellant of the filing of the trial court clerk’s

record. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a), appellant’s brief was due

July 12, 2004. By letter dated August 9, 2004, we notified appellant that the due date for
-2-

the brief had passed, that the brief had not been filed and no motion for extension of time

to file had been received by the court. Citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8, the

letter also notified appellant that the appeal would be subject to dismissal unless a

response reasonably explaining his failure to file a brief, together with a showing that the

appellee has not been significantly injured by the failure, was submitted by August 19,

2004. 

Appellant has not filed a response to the court’s August 9, 2004 letter, nor has he

since submitted a brief or a motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, having given all parties more than the required ten days’ notice, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b).

James T. Campbell

 Justice
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GREGORY ROLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-48-MP-GRJ

MICHEAL BRYANY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 18, 2011. (Doc. 1). 

Plaintiff failed to file service copies, a filing fee, or a motion to proceed as a pauper. 

Plaintiff also failed to submit the Complaint on the standard forms. On March 30, 2011,

this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint on the

standard forms. The Court also ordered Plaintiff that on or before April 27, 2011, he

should either (1) move to proceed as a pauper and submit a computer printout of his

bank account; (2) pay the full $350.00 filing fee, or (3) file a notice of voluntary

dismissal of the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). (Doc. 3). Plaintiff has failed to

complete any of the three options presented by the Court and has not filed an amended

complaint on the standard forms. 

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this cause

should be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court

Case 1:11-cv-00048-MP-GRJ Document 5 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

order.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 18th day of July, 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 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: 1:11-cv-48-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00048-MP-GRJ Document 5 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Technical Support for Constituency Outreach and Research Dissemination.                    

*Date:*                         February 1, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                              ( print page 1339)    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, (301) 435-1439,                         *lf33c.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 3, 2007.

Anna M. Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-77 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 23.10

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated June 11, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements of Isonics Corporation and Subsidiaries included in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Company's Registration
Statements on forms S-3, S-4, and S-8 (File Nos. 333-86860, 333-52514, 333-74339, 333-46542, 333-37696,
333-110032, 333-112952, 333-114521, and 333-115194).

/s/
Grant Thornton LLP

GRANT
THORNTON LLP

Denver,
Colorado
July 28, 2004



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

PATRICK KENNEDY and 

DANIELLE KENNEDY,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:09cv363/RV/EMT

 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that this matter has been compromised and settled

between the parties, it is ORDERED:

(1) This cause is hereby dismissed, with prejudice and without taxation of costs. 

(2) In the event settlement is not consummated for any reason, the Court reserves

the power, upon motion filed by any party within 60 days after date, to amend, alter or

vacate and set aside this order of dismissal. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of October, 2009.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KERRY E. CUMMINGS, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv195-MP-CAS

KENNETH S. TUCKER, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated August 7, 2012. (Doc. 19). The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (doc. 15) is GRANTED and the petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00195-MP-CAS Document 20 Filed 09/06/12 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Kevan D. Bloomgren, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: September 25, 2008

 

|   | /s/ Kevan D. Bloomgren  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Kevan D. Bloomgren      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
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 Annual Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Weisman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.

Date: November 30, 2004

/s/ David A. Weisman
--------------------
David A. Weisman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


                                      F-33
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
September 30, 2010 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: 011/16/10                        By: /s/ Stephen H. Liu
                                          --------------------------------------
                                       Name:  Stephen H. Liu
                                       Title: Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 4.10.7**

*Ministry of the Russian Federation for Communications and Information*

**Amendment No. 7****to License No. 6038 (registration series A 002831)****dated March 7, 1997**

To add the following additional paragraph to clause 1 of the Conditions For Carrying Out Activities Under License No. 6038:

“Under this License, the Licensee may provide cellular radiotelephone communications services in GSM 900/1800 dual band network and install necessary equipment to operate in the frequencies allocated in the 1800 and 900 MHz band in the license area in accordance with the established procedure.”

 

| **First Deputy Minister****of the Russian Federation for****Communications and Information** |   | [Signature]       |   | **Yu.A. Pavlenko**      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                                                                         |   |              |   |                    |
|                                                                                         |   |              |   | December 12, 2001       |
|                                                                                         |   |              |   |                    |
| **Head of the Department****of the Organization****of Licensing Activity**                   |   | [Signature][Seal] |   | **N.M.** **Popov** |

24
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TIMOTHY WAYNE CHILTON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-45-RH-GRJ

SECRETARY,

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 34, Respondent’s motion for an

extension of time to respond to the Petition. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1 That the motion for extension of time, Doc. 34, is GRANTED. Respondent

shall respond to the Petition on or before June 30, 2011.

2. Petitioner shall have until August 1, 2011, to file a reply, if any.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6 day of June 2011.

th

 

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:11-cv-00045-RH-GRJ Document 15 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NED/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDYANTO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75403

Agency No. A096-361-809

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Rudyanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.

FILED

NOV 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NED/Research 2 06-75403

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th

Cir. 2001), and review de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d

967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

because Rudyanto’s testimony was inconsistent with his declaration concerning the

year of the second attack, and the location where he regained consciousness

following this attack. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)

(inconsistencies in the details of events that form the basis for the asylum claim go

to the heart of the claim and support an adverse credibility finding).

We reject Rudyanto’s due process contention that he was not afforded with a

competent interpreter at the merits hearing because he has failed to show “a better

translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing.” Kotasz v.

INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2011210EN.01002302.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/23

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6277 — Access Industries/Warner Music Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 210/09

On 7 July 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 32011M6277. 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 32011M6277. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011076EN.01001701.xml

| 10.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/17

---

Corrigendum to public holidays in 2011: EEA EFTA States and EEA institutions

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 19 of 20 January 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 19 of 20 January 2011

2011/C 76/10

This list replaces and annuls the list published in OJ C 19, 20.1.2011, p. 5, and the EEA Supplement No 3, 20.1.2011.

Public holidays in 2011: EEA EFTA States and EEA institutions

| 2011 | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway | EFTA Surveillance Authority | EFTA Court |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 January | X | X | X | | |
| 2 January | | X | | | |
| 3 January | | | | X | X |
| 6 January | | X | | | |
| 2 February | | X | | | |
| 7 March | | | | | X |
| 19 March | | X | | | |
| 21 April | X | | X | | X |
| 22 April | X | X | X | X | X |
| 25 April | X | X | X | X | X |
| 1 May | X | X | X | | |
| 17 May | | | X | | |
| 2 June | X | X | X | X | X |
| 3 June | | | | X | X |
| 13 June | X | X | X | X | X |
| 17 June | X | | | | |
| 21 June | X | | | | |
| 23 June | | X | | | X |
| 1 August | X | | | | |
| 15 August | | X | | | X |
| 5 September | | | | | X |
| 8 September | | X | | | |
| 1 November | | X | | X | X |
| 2 November | | | | | X |
| 8 December | | X | | | |
| 25 December | X | X | X | X | X |
| 26 December | X | X | X | X | X |
| 31 December | | X | | | |

2011

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

EFTA Surveillance Authority

EFTA Court

1 January

X

X

X

2 January

X

3 January

X

X

6 January

X

2 February

X

7 March

X

19 March

X

21 April

X

X

X

22 April

X

X

X

X

X

25 April

X

X

X

X

X

1 May

X

X

X

17 May

X

2 June

X

X

X

X

X

3 June

X

X

13 June

X

X

X

X

X

17 June

X

21 June

X

23 June

X

X

1 August

X

15 August

X

X

5 September

X

8 September

X

1 November

X

X

X

2 November

X

8 December

X

25 December

X

X

X

X

X

26 December

X

X

X

X

X

31 December

X

---