alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                 March 15, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                      under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                          Form 20-F [X]   Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

 Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
     Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                               Yes [ ]     No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________



<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit   Description
-------   -----------

  99.1    Press Release, dated March 15, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
          Retraction From Source.




<PAGE>



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  March 15, 2005

                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By    /s/ Peter G. White
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Peter G. White
                                              Title: Vice President, Operations
                                                     and Secretary
AMENDMENT TO THE

COHERENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CORPORATION

AMENDED AND RESTATED 1993 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN

 

	**WHEREAS,** Coherent Communications Systems Corporation Coherent has heretofore established the Coherent Communications Systems Corporation Amended and Restated 1993 Equity Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of employees,non-employee directors, and eligible independent contractors of Coherent Communications Systems Corporation and its subsidiaries;

	**WHEREAS,** Coherent was acquired by Tellabs, Inc. ("Tellabs") in a merger on August 3, 1998, and Coherent subsequently merged into Tellabs Operations, Inc. (the "Corporation");

	**WHEREAS,**the Board of Directors of Tellabs deems it desirable to make certain amendments to the Plan relating to the vesting of options and stock appreciation rights ("SARs") and/or the post-employment exercise period in the eventof the death, disability, or retirement of an option or SAR holder, or a change in control of Tellabs;

	**WHEREAS,** the Board of Directors has considered the recommendations; and

	**WHEREAS,** the Board of Directors of the Corporation has approved this Amendment to the Plan.

	**NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,** that the Plan is hereby amended, effective June 30, 2000, as follows:

- Under Section 2 of the Plan, the following definition of "Change in Control" shall be added:
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 44 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-2 05 17 -CM A-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RUBEN SANCHEZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 1, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10447 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 1 of 2All enP. Peg g, ap po in te d c ou ns el forRube n S an ch ez, h as m ov edto

withd raw fro m

furth er re pr es en ta ti on of t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o Ander s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 (19 67 ). Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re reco rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o a rg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andSan ch ez’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are AFFIRMED .

2 Case: 12-10447 Date Filed: 10/11/2012 Page: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHARLES B. SANDERS,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ No. 240, 2018

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID K9312012607

§

§

O R D E R

This 2nd day of August 2018, it appears to the Court that the appellant’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal was denied by Order dated July

18, 2018. The appellant was instructed to pay the required fee by July 30, 2018 or 

else his appeal would be dismissed without further notice. The appellant has failed 

to pay the required fee. Dismissal, therefore, is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
#### City of New York et al., Appellants, v Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

[827 NYS2d 17]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered December 6, 2005, which, in this action seeking declaratory relief, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment only to the extent of declaring that defendant Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica) is precluded from asserting a late notice of claim defense, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs’ motion to the further extent of declaring that Utica is precluded from disclaiming based on any policy exclusion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs City of New York, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, defendants in the underlying personal injury action, together with their insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., seek a declaration that defendant insurer must defend and indemnify the personal injury action defendants. Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant is collaterally estopped from litigating whether it is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiffs was properly rejected by the motion court, since the prior determination relied upon by plaintiffs involved litigants, property conditions and alleged injury-producing events different from those in the underlying action.

The motion court also properly determined that Utica’s disclaimer of insurance coverage was untimely, as a matter of law (see *First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp.,*1 NY3d 64, 69 [2003]). However, it erred in precluding Utica only from asserting a late notice defense. Utica’s failure to give timely notice to plaintiffs also precludes it from disclaiming based on any policy exclusion, including, of course, that premised upon “acts of the additional insured” *(see Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau,*46 NY2d 1028 [1979]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
### NUMBER 13

- 10

- 003 34

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

NOE NOYOLA

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105 th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ro driguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Noe Noyola , was convict ed of possession of cocaine . On June 18

,

20 10 , appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. On August 31, 2010 , this Court abated

the appeal and remanded to the t rial court because appointed counsel , the Honorable

Deeanne S. Galvan, advised this Court that she no longer represented appellant and the

record fail ed to indicate whether appellant was entitled to appointed counsel on appeal

.2

At the trial court hearing, appellant appeared with retained counsel, the Honorable

Dee A nn Torres, and stated that he did not desire to prosecute an appeal in this cause.

At the hearing it was established that neither Ms. Galvan nor Ms. Torres filed a no tice of

appeal on behalf of appellant and that appellant has chosen not to pursue an appeal.

Based upon the evidence at the hearing that appellant does not want to pursue an

appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a ) in

this case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 3rd

d ay of February , 20 11

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 05, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 05, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0283. ANTONIO ROBLES CASTILLO v. JESSICA CARDENAS LOPEZ.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 21CVE1954
#### In the Matter of Stephanie Y. Bradley, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[975 NYS2d 358]

Per Curiam.

Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Washington, D.C., where she was admitted to the bar in 1979. She was admitted to practice by this Court in 1984.

By order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dated *1140July 11, 2013, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years. According to the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, respondent engaged in professional misconduct in violation of various District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct by negligently and incompetently handling two guardianship appointments, and she was deliberately dishonest in her testimony before the hearing committee investigating the complaints against her.

As a result of the discipline imposed in the District of Columbia, petitioner moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). We grant the unopposed motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented, respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.

Rose, J.P, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
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

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1027]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Infant Formula Recall Regulations” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,                         *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On October 27, 2014, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Infant Formula Recall Regulations” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it                           ( print page 78447)                        displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0188. The approval expires on November 30, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: December 22, 2014.

Leslie Kux,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-30461 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### In the Matter of Lakshmi G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Jose V., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 60]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol R. Sherman, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding determination of neglect, placed the subject child in the custody of petitioner until the next permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot, without costs. Appeal from the fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 5, *6412012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The court properly found that petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the child by leaving her in the care of the mother, who admitted to him that she was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices for more than a year, and who later threw the seven-week-old child to the pavement, after asserting that she saw a light in the sky and a chariot with a figure, which were signs from God, and that the child was “possessed.” A reasonably prudent parent would not have left the child in the care of the mother, given her mental state *(see Matter of Joseph Benjamin P. [Allen P.],*81 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 710 [2011]).

The appeal from the dispositional portion of the order is moot since the placement terms of the order have expired *(see Matter of Isaiah M. [Antoya M.],*96 AD3d 516 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin GONZALEZ-CANTUL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50333.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

David P. Kowal, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan D. Libby, Deputy FPD, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Gonzalez-Cantul appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellant’s contention that imposition of the remedial scheme in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), violated the Ex Post Facto clause is foreclosed. *See United States v. Dupas,*419 F.3d 916, 919-21 (9th Cir.2005). His contention that the district court improperly delegated to the probation officer the decision whether, and how much, he should pay for any post-custodial psychiatric treatment is similarly foreclosed. *See id.*at 922-24.

Finally, appellant’s contention that the reporting condition of his supervised release violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is also foreclosed. *See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez,*441 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                         264,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,544,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   199,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,800,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,858,000
<PP&E>                                       4,503,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,315,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,061,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,982,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,583,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,340,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,292,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,061,000
<SALES>                                      3,734,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,734,000
<CGS>                                          826,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,505,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                200,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            200,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   200,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
February 2, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00853

- CV V.

KIJU JOH , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an interlocutory appeal from the denial of THE CITY OF HOUSTON’S plea to the jurisdiction, signed September 26, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgme nt of the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant, THE CITY OF HOUSTON, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
----

----

----

----

| 1.   | Section      1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in the first sentence thereof by      deleting the date “January 4, 2007” and replacing it with the date      “January 4, 2008”. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      David P. Luci                |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Name:  | David      P. Luci                    |
| Title: | Chairman,      Compensation Committee |

|   | /s/      Jeffrey B. Davis |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Jeffrey      B. Davis     |
|   | President      & CEO  |
|   | April      9, 2008        |

----