alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010241EN.01000101.xml

| 8.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5756 — DFDS/Norfolk)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 241/01

On 17 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 32010M5756. 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 32010M5756. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00202

- CV

IN RE NICODEMUS INVESTMENTS, LLC RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
TRIAL COURT NO. CV

- 2 015

- 02367

----------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------

The court has considere d rela tor’s petition for writ of mandamus , real party

in int erest’s letter in response, relator’s reply, and the mandamus record as

supplemented.

We therefore vacate our June 21, 2018 order staying the trial court’s

June 12, 2018 contempt order, and we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: PITTMAN, KERR, and BIRDWELL, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 16, 2018

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5538 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

inclusion of certain additional periods of active duty service for purposes of suspending charges to veterans’ entitlement to educational assistance under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs during periods 

of suspended participation in vocational rehabilitation 

programs. 
2 

•HR 5538 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PERIODS 

4 OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF 

5 SUSPENSION OF CHARGES TO ENTITLEMENT 

6 DURING PERIODS OF SUSPENDED PARTICI7 PATION IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF8 FAIRS VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PRO9 GRAMS. 

10 Section 3105(e)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

11 is amended by striking ‘‘or 12304’’ and inserting ‘‘12304, 

12 12304a, or 12304b’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5538 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 

tion programs. suspended participation in vocational rehabilitaSecretary of Veterans Affairs during periods of assistance under the laws administered by the charges to veterans’ entitlement to educational active duty service for purposes of suspending for the inclusion of certain additional periods of
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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential  trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals  associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, NRSA Training Grants.                    

*Date:*                         March 6, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Serena P. Chu, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6154, MSC 9609, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-0004,                         *sechu@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 7, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-644  Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PAMELA K. EMERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv66/RS-CJK

UNIFIRST CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Defendant’s Agreed Motion To Continue Pretrial Deadlines And

Trial (Doc. 16).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Trial, presently scheduled for November 14, 2011, is continued.

2. Counsel shall file an amended joint report not later than July 11, 2011,

with a discovery deadline of December 10, 2011, and a trial date of March

12, 2012.

ORDERED on June 27, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00066-RS-CJK Document 17 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD
<LEGEND>
     STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023844
<NAME>                        OLYMPIC CASCADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-24-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-24-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1000
<CASH>                                         384
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,636
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            298
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          720
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            41,416
<PP&E>                                         1,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 86,697
<SHORT-TERM>                                   2,440
<PAYABLES>                                     77,906
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             139
<LONG-TERM>                                    2,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       34
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   86,697
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              9,057
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           5,557
<COMMISSIONS>                                  24,565
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  2,459
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,764
<COMPENSATION>                                 30,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                114
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     114
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .08



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6268

JOHN KEITH SMITH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOCTOR INDER JEET SINGH GUJRAL,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

WANDA ROLLINS; C. WEBB,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00293-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: July 19, 2019 Decided: August 5, 2019

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Keith Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Ramon Rodriguez, III, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Keith Smith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to 

Doctor Inder Gujral in Smith’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Smith v. Gujral, No. 3:16-cv-00293-HEH-RCY (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2019). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2362

MICHAEL ANTRANTRINO LEE, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

D. BISHOFF, Lieutenant; B. GAINER, Correctional Officer; CAPTAIN YEAGER; 

LT. YARBER, LIEUTENANT (acting SIA at time), 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

MERRICK GARLAND, United States Attorney General, 

Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00054-JPB-JPM) 

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Antrantrino Lee, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Antrantrino Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order issued in his 

pending civil action denying his motion to appoint counsel. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Lee seeks to appeal is neither a final order 

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We deny Lee’s motion to appoint counsel and 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. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5418 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5418

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out the Medical 
      Surgical Prime Vendor program using multiple prime vendors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2018

  Mr. Bergman (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mr. Banks of Indiana, and Mr. 
    Dunn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out the Medical 
      Surgical Prime Vendor program using multiple prime vendors.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Affairs Medical-Surgical 
Purchasing Stabilization Act''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAL SURGICAL PRIME VENDOR PROGRAM.

    (a) Vendors.--In procuring certain medical, surgical, and dental 
supplies or laboratory supplies for medical centers of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall carry out 
the Medical Surgical Prime Vendor program, or successor program, in a 
manner that--
            (1) requires the Secretary to award contracts to multiple 
        regional prime vendors instead of a single nationwide prime 
        vendor; and
            (2) prohibits--
                    (A) a prime vendor from solely designing the 
                formulary of such supplies; and
                    (B) a prime vendor from solely purchasing from such 
                formulary.
    (b) Clinically Driven Sourcing.--
            (1) Expertise.--In carrying out the formulary of supplies 
        under the Medical Surgical Prime Vendor program, or successor 
        program, the Secretary shall ensure that each employee of the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs who conducts formulary analyses 
        or makes decisions with respect to including items on the 
        formulary has medical expertise relevant to the items for which 
        the employee conducts such analyses or makes such decisions.
            (2) Lists.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter with respect to 
        any updates, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
        Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 
        Senate a list of each employee described in paragraph (1) and 
        the relevant medical expertise of the employee, listed by the 
        categories of items in the formulary described in such 
        paragraph.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:11cv153-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CARRIE J. RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv153-RH/CAS

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS,

LEON COUNTY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

recommendation, ECF No. 35, and the objections, ECF No. 36. I have reviewed 

de novo the issues raised by the objections. 

The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court’s 

opinion, with this minor correction. An earlier order made Local Rule 56.1 

inapplicable in this case. See Scheduling and Mediation Order entered June 15, 

2011, ECF No. 8. But that does not affect the analysis in the report and 

recommendation or the conclusion that the defendant is entitled to summary 

judgment. 

Case 4:11-cv-00153-RH-CAS Document 37 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:11cv153-RH/CAS

The bottom line is this. The undisputed evidence establishes that the 

plaintiff engaged in unprofessional conduct at work, was unapologetic, and was 

given the option of resigning or being fired. Race had nothing to do with it. The 

defendant reasonably classified the plaintiff as ineligible for rehire. The plaintiff 

filed a charge of racial discrimination, but even if she had a good-faith basis for 

doing so—not an obvious proposition—the defendant did not retaliate against her; 

to the contrary, the defendant already had classified the plaintiff as ineligible for 

rehire. It was reasonable, and not a violation of Title VII or the Florida Civil Right 

Act, for the defendant to truthfully respond to a prospective employer’s question 

whether the plaintiff was eligible for rehire.

For these reasons and those set out a greater length in the report and 

recommendation,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. The defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED. The clerk must enter 

judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.” The clerk must 

close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 10, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00153-RH-CAS Document 37 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

NEWMONT GHANA GOLD LIMITED :
et al. r

Plaintiffs, :

vs.
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-62-MCR/CIK

HILLER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FOLLOWING MEDIATION |
Plaintiff, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited, et al., and Defendant Hiller Systems, Inc., by

and through their undersigned counsel, hereby advise the Court that the parties were able to
reach a settlement in this matter following mediaton on September 27, 2012. The parties expect
to finalize and execute a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement, and file a Stipulation of
Dismissal with Prejudice of all claims and counterclaims, within the next thirty (30) days

Dated: October 3, 2012
COZEN O’CONNOR

By: /s/Daniel C. Theveny
Daniel C. Theveny, Esq.
Gerard Belz, Jr., Esq.
Cozen O’Connor
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-665-2000

Of counsel:

Richard M. Dunn, Esq.

Joshua R. Goodman, Esq.
Wachovia Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131-2303
Telephone: 305-704-5940
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



BRADY RADCLIFF & BROWN LLP

/s/ Donald C. Radcliff, Esq.(w/permission)
Donald C. Radcliff, Esq.

dradcliff@brblawyers.com
P.O. Box 1668 |
Mobile, AL 36633 |
Telephone: 251-405-0071

Facsimile: 251-405-0076

Attorneys for Defendant Hiller Systems, Inc.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM N. TAYLOR, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv338/MCR/EMT

DAVID MORGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 1, 2). 

In his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states that he has been

incarcerated at the Escambia County Jail for fewer than six months (Doc. 2 at 2). While Plaintiff’s

jail bank account reflects that he currently has an outstanding debt of $445.91 (id. at 4), Plaintiff also

acknowledges that he has $5,000.00 in another bank account, is entitled to receive a monthly

disability check in the amount of $1,623.00, and, apparently, anticipates receiving $2000.00 in book

royalties (id. at 6). Although Plaintiff also reports debts or financial obligations exceeding

$350,000, including for his wife’s medical expenses (id.), based on the information provided by

Plaintiff which reflects significant assets, the court cannot conclude that he is entitled to proceed as

a pauper. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff should have sufficient funds to pay the filing fee in full. 

If Plaintiff contends otherwise, he may submit an amended application in which he explains to the

court in detail the reasons for his asserted inability to pay the filing fee.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED without

prejudice.
Page 2 of 2

2. The clerk shall send Plaintiff a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a prisoner

consent form and financial certificate approved for use in the Northern District. This case number

should be written on the forms.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the $350.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with

the requisite prisoner consent form, a financial certificate signed by a prison official, and an attached

computer printout of the transactions in his prison account during the preceding six-month period. 

4. Failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of September 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 3:10cv338/MCR/EMT