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

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 17 July 2006 — Marks & Spencer plc v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-309/06)

(2006/C 261/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marks & Spencer plc

Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Questions referred

----

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1)

----
#### In the Matter of Shelton Johnson, Appellant-Respondent, v New York City Department of Environmental Protection et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[824 NYS2d 39]

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J), entered February 15, 2006, which granted the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, to the extent of annulling and vacating respondents’ determination, dated February 6, 2003, that petitioner had forfeited his employment with the Department of Environmental Protection, and ordering respondent Department to pay petitioner $24,941.60 in back pay representing earnings due to lost overtime and weekend differentials, but denied the petition insofar as it sought petitioner’s reinstatement to his former position at the North 15th Street Maintenance Yard in Brooklyn, New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the court improperly deemed respondents’ motion to vacate and modify the prior judgment, entered February 15, 2005, a motion to resettle *(see Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 566 [1979]), the motion was properly granted *(see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,*100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]) to the extent of vacating the direction to place petitioner in the specific geographic location to which he was assigned before he was discharged, since there is no authority for such a requirement. Although petitioner was assigned to a different location, he was restored to the title he held before he was discharged and to the duties of that title.

*242The court also properly denied the motion to the extent of refusing to vacate that part of the judgment awarding petitioner back pay due to lost overtime and weekend premiums to the extent that those amounts can be documented *(cf. Hancock v City of New York,*272 AD2d 80 [2000] [remanding for calculation of back pay excluding speculative amounts]; *Lukas v Ascher,*299 AD2d 262 [2002]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and McGuire, JJ.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 25, 2014 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                     |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2011-B                          |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10084-10085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3977]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 15, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

[[Page 10085]]

Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the 
Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 
301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, 
or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. 
Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by 
expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a 
show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final 
order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0005.
    Date Filed: January 11, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: February 1, 2011.
    Description: Application of Hangar 8 AOC Limited requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit to the full extent authorized by the Air 
Transport Agreement between the United States and the European 
Community and the Member States of the European Community to engage it 
to engage in: (i) Foreign charter air transportation of persons and 
property from any point or points behind any Member State of the 
European Union via any point or points in any Member State and via 
intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and 
beyond; (ii) foreign charter air transportation of persons and property 
between any point or points in the United States and any point or 
points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) other 
charters pursuant to prior approval requirements; and (iv) 
transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available 
to European Community carriers in the future. Hangar 8 further requests 
exemption authority to the extent necessary to enable it to provide the 
services described above pending issuance of a foreign air carrier 
permit and such additional or other relief as the Department may deem 
necessary or appropriate.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-3977 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20499

Matthew James Leachman, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, 

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CV-2943

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Matthew James Leachman, Texas prisoner # 01525039, moves for a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal, on exhaustion and 

abstention grounds, of his pretrial 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Leachman’s 

§ 2241 petition challenged his pending retrial for aggravated sexual assault of 

a child on the basis of prosecutorial vindictiveness, double jeopardy, and a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20499 Document: 00516315999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2022
No. 21-20499

2

violation of his right to a speedy trial. He additionally appeals the district 

court’s implicit denial of his motion to expand the record.

As an initial matter, by failing to request a COA on the issue of double 

jeopardy, Leachman has abandoned that claim. See Matchett v. Dretke, 380 

F.3d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2004). To obtain a COA on his remaining claims, 

including his challenge to the denial of the motion to expand the record, 

Leachman must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by showing “at least, that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling,” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Leachman fails to make the requisite 

showing, and the motion for a COA is accordingly DENIED.

To the extent a COA is not required to appeal the denial of the motion 

to expand the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion. See In re Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 304 F.3d 

410, 433 n.43 (5th Cir. 2002). The documents that Leachman sought to 

expand the record to include would not alter the district court’s finding that 

he failed to exhaust his state court remedies before seeking federal habeas 

relief. See generally Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Accordingly, we alternatively AFFIRM the denial of the motion to expand 

the record.

Case: 21-20499 Document: 00516315999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2022
### §2735. Settlement: final and conclusive

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the settlement of a claim under section 2733, 2733a, 2734, 2734a, 2734b, or 2737 of this title is final and conclusive.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 155; Pub. L. 88–558, §5(1), Aug. 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 768; Pub. L. 92–413, Aug. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 649; Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VII, §731(c)(1), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1460.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2735 | 31:222c (1st sentence of (e)).31:223b (4th sentence).31:224d (last proviso). | May 29, 1945, ch. 135, §1 (e) (1st sentence); restated July 3, 1952, ch. 548, §1 (1st sentence of last par.), 66 Stat. 323. |
| | | July 3, 1943, ch. 189, §1 (4th sentence), 57 Stat. 373. |
| | | Jan. 2, 1942, ch. 645, §1 (last proviso); restated Apr. 22, 1943, ch. 67, §1 (last proviso), 57 Stat. 67. |

31:223b (4th sentence).

31:224d (last proviso).

The words "for all purposes" and "to the contrary", in each source credit; "by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, or the Secretary of Defense, or their designees" and "such regulations as they, respectively, may prescribe hereunder", in 31:222c(e); "by the Secretary of the Army, or his designee" and "such regulations as he may prescribe hereunder", in 31:223b; and "by such Commissions", in 31:224d; are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 116–92 substituted "2733, 2733a," for "2733,".

1972—Pub. L. 92–413 inserted reference to sections 2734a, 2734b, and 2737 of this title.

1964—Pub. L. 88–558 struck out reference to section 2732.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2019 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–92 applicable to any claim filed under section 2733a of this title, on or after Jan. 1, 2020, and any claim filed in calendar year 2020 deemed to be filed within the time period specified in section 2733a(b)(4) of this title if it is filed within three years after it accrues, see section 731(d) of Pub. L. 116–92, set out as an Effective Date note under section 2733a of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1964 Amendment

Pub. L. 88–558, §5, Aug. 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 768, provided that the amendment made by that section is effective two years from Aug. 31, 1964.

#### Repeals

The directory language of, but not the amendment made by, Pub. L. 88–558, Aug. 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 767, cited as a credit to this section and in the Effective Date of 1964 Amendment note above, was repealed by Pub. L. 97–258, §5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1068.
§ 169.12 How does BIA provide notice to the parties to a right-of-way? When this part requires BIA to notify the parties of our intent to grant a right-of-way under § 169.107(b) or our determination to approve or disapprove a right-of-way document, and to provide any right of appeal: ( a ) For rights-of-way over or across tribal land, we will notify the applicant and the tribe by first class U.S. mail or, upon request, electronic mail; and
( b ) For rights-of-way over or across individually owned Indian land, we will notify the applicant and individual Indian landowners by first class U.S. mail or, upon request, electronic mail. If the individually owned land is located within a tribe's jurisdiction, we will also notify the tribe by first class U.S. mail or, upon request, electronic mail.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Información Para Comenzar a Recibir Su Beneficio 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Información para Comenzar a Recibir Su Beneficio

##### **Primeros pasos para comenzar a recibir su beneficio**

                                - Como Contactar a PBGC Sobre Pensiones No Reclamadas
                                - Información para Personas que Aún No Esten Recibiendo Beneficios
                                - Cómo Conseguir la Estimación de un Beneficio de Pensión de PBGC
                                - Como Solicitar sus Beneficios de Pensión  
                                - Información para Designar un Beneficiario

##### **Aprenda más sobre los beneficios de pensión**

                                - Información sobre Beneficios, Pagos, Beneficiarios, y Apelaciones
                                - Información sobre sus Opciones de Beneficio de PBGC
                                - ¿Que es una Anualidad? ¿Que es una Cantidad Total?
                                - Tabla de Garantías Mensuales Máximas  
                                - Publicación de EBSA (DOL) sobre pensiones (Enlance externo del Departamento de Trabajo)  

June 13, 2022
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Mortality Table For 2015 Valuation Dates 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# ERISA Section 4044 Mortality Table for 2015 Valuation Dates

This mortality table is used to determine the present value of annuities in involuntary terminations and distress terminations of single-employer plans, as discussed in 29 CFR 4044. This mortality table is also available in EXCEL.

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables page.

November 29, 2018

##           Related Information      

Subscribe to Interest Rate Updates
### §8859. Libel and proceedings by United States attorney

(a) Upon receiving the report of the prize master directed by section 8858 of this title, the United States attorney for the district shall promptly—

(1) file a libel against the prize property;

(2) obtain a warrant from the court directing the marshal to take custody of the prize property; and

(3) proceed to obtain a condemnation of the property.

(b) In connection with the condemnation proceedings the United States attorney shall insure that the prize commissioners—

(1) take proper preparatory evidence; and

(2) take depositions de bene esse of the prize crew and of other transient persons who know any facts bearing on condemnation.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 477, §7659; renumbered §8859 and amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §§807(d)(9), 809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837, 1840.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7659 | 34 U.S.C. 1135. | R.S. 4618. |

As does 34 U.S.C. 1135, the revised section reflects the Act of March 3, 1899, ch. 413, §13, 30 Stat. 1007, which repealed all laws authorizing distribution of prize proceeds to captors.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232, §807(d)(9), renumbered section 7659 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–232, §809(a), substituted "section 8858" for "section 7658" in introductory provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50393 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PRAJEDIX DAVILA-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CR-1044-1-H

-------------------- December 14, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Prajedix Davila-Ortega argues that a prior felony conviction must be included in an indictment charging an illegal reentry following deportation and proven at trial if the defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that because the element of a prior felony conviction was not included in his indictment and no evidence was presented at trial, his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for imposition of a sentence not to exceed a maximum term of two years’ imprisonment.No. 00-50393 -2- Davila-Ortega acknowledges that in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a prior felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was merely a sentencing factor and, thus, need not be included in the indictment. He argues, however, that in its subsequent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000), the Supreme Court stated that it was arguable that Almendarez-Torres was decided incorrectly. Davila-Ortega concedes that he failed to raise this challenge in the district court. Davila-Ortega’s challenge to the length of the sentence imposed is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Meshack , 225 F.3d 556, 575 (5th Cir. 2000)

. In light of the clear precedent of Almendarez-Torres , Davila-Ortega has failed to show that the district court committed error, plain or otherwise, in imposing his sentence. See United States v. Dabeit , F.3d (5th Cir., Oct. 30, 2000, No. 00-10065) 2000 WL 1634264 at *4; United States v. Doggett , 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
#### § 162.526 [Reserved]
#### § 166.418 When is a grazing rental payment late?

A grazing rental payment is late if it is not received on or before the due date.
# C_2006190EN.01001601.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission

(Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Competition - Regulation No 17 - Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 - Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC - Hearing Officer - Measure having binding legal effects - Admissibility - Legitimate interest - Standing of applicant or complainant - Client final buyer of goods or services - Access to statements of objections - Confidential information - Sufficient interest)

(2006/C 190/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: initially M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and A. Reidlinger, then H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG (Vienna) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Rating, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decisions of the Hearing Officer of 9 August 2001 and 25 July 2001, respectively, to disclose to an Austrian political party (the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) the non-confidential versions of the statements of objections relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC concerning the fixing of banking tariffs (COMP/36.571-Österreische Banken)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay two thirds of the costs of the main proceedings and the whole of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay two thirds of the costs of the main proceedings and the whole of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs of the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs of the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30003

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES G. “JERRY” LABARBA, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-50103-1

--------------------

October 1, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James G. “Jerry” LaBarba, Sr., appeals his jury convictions

for conspiring to commit bank fraud and to misapply bank funds

and aiding and abetting bank fraud. He argues that the district

court erred in excluding proffered evidence of a work-out

agreement between him and the defrauded bank. After reviewing

the record and the briefs of the parties, we hold that the

district court did not abuse its broad discretion in excluding

the evidence as being irrelevant to LaBarba’s intent and, in any

event, did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence
No. 01-30003

-2-

under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See United States v.

Waldrip, 981 F.2d 799, 806 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.

Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262, 265-67 (5th Cir. 1977).

AFFIRMED.