alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SUBCHAPTER II—REINSURANCE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OLD HAVANA INN, LLC AND HOTEL

HAVANA, LLC,

 Appellants,

v.

KIAN MASHADI AND SHAHRAM

YEKTARAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND

D/B/A COOL CAFÉ,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00191-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 10

of Bexar County, Texas 

(TC# 353779) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss. The motion states that the parties

have reached a settlement agreement, resolving all issues and claims between them. The parties

request an order releasing a certificate of deposit that was made in lieu of a supersedeas bond. 

The motion is granted. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2). All claims and counterclaims are

dismissed with prejudice. In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the Bexar County Clerk

shall release the certificate of deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond as follows: $25,000 to the

Rosenblatt Law Firm, P.C. and the remaining balance to Hotel Havana, L.L.C. Because the

motion does not address costs on appeal, those costs are taxed against Appellants. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

January 5, 2011

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00327

- CV

I n the Interest of P.S. and C.S.,

Children §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323

- 100795

- 14)

November 3, 2016

Per Curiam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal shou ld be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed as

moot.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
### §205j–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title III, §3001(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 734

Section, Pub. L. 94–168, §12, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5164(c), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1452, related to agency guidelines to carry out metric conversion policy.

A prior section 12 of Pub. L. 94–168 was renumbered section 13 and is classified to section 205k of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1
<CURRENCY>                                         U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                                 646,172
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,350,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (49,266)
<INVENTORY>                                            240,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     5,553,751
<PP&E>                                                 934,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                         471,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       6,156,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                4,090,399
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                61,035
<OTHER-SE>                                              28,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         6,156,703
<SALES>                                              4,127,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,127,916
<CGS>                                                5,772,633
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,772,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,129,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     118,891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (4,837,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (4,837,052)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (4,837,052)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0
        


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6797

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RODRIGUEZ RODNEY LOMAX NORMAN, a/k/a Roddoe, a/k/a Jeffrey Scott , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cr - 00254

- LMB

- 2 )

Submitted : December 17, 2021 Decided: January 26, 2022

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Rodriguez Rodney Lomax Norman , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6797 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Rodriguez Rodney Lomax Norman , a federal prisoner, appeals from the district
court’s order s denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) , a s amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 1 15

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 , and denying reconsideration

. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have
reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. The district court denied Norman’s
motion s after assessing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial. See United States v. Hi gh , 997 F.3d 181, 18 8

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion)

. We therefore affirm the district court’s order s
. We deny the 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6797 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001063698
<NAME> ALLIANCE LAUNDRY HOLDINGS LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (372)
<INVENTORY>                                     30,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,782
<PP&E>                                         174,439
<DEPRECIATION>                               (115,079)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,050
<BONDS>                                        321,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,645
<OTHER-SE>                                   (195,651)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,710
<SALES>                                        247,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,283
<CGS>                                          183,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  183,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   321
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                        29
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,691
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

December 20, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134154 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan LAUREL WOODS APARTMENTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134154 COA: 269506 Oakland CC: 05-069007-CZ NAJAH ROUMAYAH, Defendant-Appellee,

and

REBECCA ROUMAYAH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

s1213 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 20, 2007

Clerk
#### § 590.124 Schedule of operation of official plants.

Operating schedules for an official plant shall be subject to approval of the Administrator. The normal operating schedule shall consist of a continuous 8-hour period per day and shall include the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to put on required gear and to walk to a work station, and the time for FSIS inspection program personnel to return from a work station and remove required gear (excluding not to exceed 1 hour for lunch), 5 consecutive days per week, within the administrative workweek, Sunday through Saturday, for each full shift required. Clock hours of daily operations need not be specified in a schedule, although as a condition of continuance of approval of a schedule, the hours of operation must be reasonably uniform from day to day.

[48 FR 20683, May 9, 1983, as amended at 76 FR 33980, June 10, 2011]
### §1096. Registration on supplemental register not used to stop importations

Registration on the supplemental register or under the Act of March 19, 1920, shall not be filed in the Department of the Treasury or be used to stop importations.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title II, §28, 60 Stat. 436.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of March 19, 1920, referred to in text, is act Mar. 19, 1920, ch. 104, §§1–9, 41 Stat. 533, which was generally classified to sections 121 to 128 of this title, and which was repealed insofar as inconsistent with this chapter by act July 5, 1946, ch. 540, §46(b), 60 Stat. 444.

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

#### Repeal and Effect on Existing Rights

Repeal of inconsistent provisions, effect of this chapter on pending proceedings and existing registrations and rights under prior acts, see notes set out under section 1051 of this title.
§ 94.30 Importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, poultry meat and other poultry products from the States of Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, may be imported into the United States under the following conditions: ( a ) The poultry meat or other poultry products are derived from poultry born and raised in Sinaloa or Sonora and slaughtered in Sinaloa or Sonora at a federally inspected slaughter plant under the direct supervision of a full-time salaried veterinarian of the Government of Mexico, and the slaughter plant must be approved to export poultry meat and other poultry products to the United States in accordance with 9 CFR 381.196.
( b ) If processed, the poultry meat or other poultry products were processed in either Sinaloa or Sonora, Mexico, in a federally inspected processing plant that is under the direct supervision of a full-time salaried veterinarian of the Government of Mexico.
( c ) The poultry meat or other poultry products have not been in contact with poultry from any State in Mexico other than Sinaloa or Sonora or with poultry from any other region not listed in § 94.6 as a region where Newcastle disease is not known to exist.
( d ) The foreign meat inspection certificate accompanying the poultry meat or other poultry products (required by 9 CFR 381.197) includes statements certifying that the requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section have been met and, if applicable, listing the numbers of the seals required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
( e ) The shipment of poultry meat or other poultry products has not been in any State in Mexico other than Sinaloa or Sonora or in any other region not listed in § 94.6 as a region where Newcastle disease is not known to exist, unless: ( 1 ) The poultry meat or other poultry products arrive at the U.S. port of entry in shipping containers bearing intact, serially numbered seals that were applied at the federally inspected slaughter plant by a full-time salaried veterinarian of the Government of Mexico, and the seal numbers correspond with the seal numbers listed on the foreign meat inspection certificate; or
( 2 ) The poultry meat or other poultry products arrive at the U.S. port of entry in shipping containers bearing seals that have different numbers than the seal numbers on the foreign meat inspection certificate, but, upon inspection of the hold, compartment, or container and all accompanying documentation, an APHIS representative is satisfied that the poultry containers were opened and resealed en route by an appropriate official of the Government of Mexico and the poultry meat or other poultry products were not contaminated or exposed to contamination during movement from Sinaloa or Sonora to the United States.
[65 FR 15526, Mar. 23, 2000. Redesignated at 70 FR 550, Jan. 4, 2005, as amended at 78 FR 19084, Mar. 29, 2013. Redesignated at 78 FR 72999, Dec. 4, 2013]
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92326, 333-117148, 333-118728, 333-136845 and 333-152213) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-136046, 333-136366, 333-143680 and 333-152188) of TerreStar Corporation (formerly Motient Corporation) andsubsidiaries of our reports dated March 12, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ Friedman LLP 

East Hanover, New Jersey 

March 12, 2009
### §1667e. Applicability of State laws; exemptions by Bureau from leasing requirements

(a) This part does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this part from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to consumer leases, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this part, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. The Bureau is authorized to determine whether such inconsistencies exist. The Bureau may not determine that any State law is inconsistent with any provision of this part if the Bureau determines that such law gives greater protection and benefit to the consumer.

(b) The Bureau shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this part any class of lease transactions within any State if it determines that under the law of that State that class of transactions is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed under this part or that such law gives greater protection and benefit to the consumer, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §186, as added Pub. L. 94–240, §3, Mar. 23, 1976, 90 Stat. 260; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1100A(2), (10), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2107, 2109.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–203, §1100A(2), (10), substituted "Bureau" for "Board", "the Bureau" for "the Board", and "The Bureau" for "The Board" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
# C_2012138EN.01003905.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/39

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 March 2011 — Kaskarelis v Commission

(Case F-24/10) (1)

(2012/C 138/95)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 58.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-28623, 333-50341, 333-38998, 333-66446, and
333-116541) of National Dentex Corporation of our report dated March 16, 2006
relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 16, 2006
# C_2010301EN.01006502.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/65

---

Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament

(Case F-78/10)

()

2010/C 301/106

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Pilar Antelo Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their monthly salaries from July 2009 to an increase of 1,85 %, as part of the annual adjustment of remunerations and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as its fixes the rate of adjustment of salaries at 1.85 % in accordance with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as its fixes the rate of adjustment of salaries at 1.85 % in accordance with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

| — | award the applicants default interest, calculated in accordance with the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, payable in respect of all sums corresponding to the difference between the salary mentioned in pay slips from January 2010 and those for pay adjustments for the period from July 2009 to December 2009 and the salary to which they would have been entitled until the date on which the belated settlement of those salaries took place; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicants default interest, calculated in accordance with the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, payable in respect of all sums corresponding to the difference between the salary mentioned in pay slips from January 2010 and those for pay adjustments for the period from July 2009 to December 2009 and the salary to which they would have been entitled until the date on which the belated settlement of those salaries took place;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 533 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 533

     To require the Secretary of the Treasury to consider certain 
  transactions related to precious metals for purposes of identifying 
   jurisdictions of primary money laundering concern, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2019

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Rubio) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Secretary of the Treasury to consider certain 
  transactions related to precious metals for purposes of identifying 
   jurisdictions of primary money laundering concern, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PRECIOUS 
              METALS FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFYING JURISDICTIONS OF 
              PRIMARY MONEY LAUNDERING CONCERN.

    Section 5318A(c)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by redesignating clauses (iii) through (vii) as 
                clauses (iv) through (viii), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
                            ``(iii) the extent to which the 
                        jurisdiction or financial institutions 
                        operating in that jurisdiction facilitate 
                        transactions that are related to precious 
                        metals and are subject to being blocked 
                        pursuant to sanctions imposed by the United 
                        States under any statute or Executive order;''; 
                        and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as 
                clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
                            ``(iv) the extent to which such financial 
                        institutions, transactions, or types of 
                        accounts are used to facilitate transactions 
                        that are related to precious metals and are 
                        subject to being blocked pursuant to sanctions 
                        imposed by the United States under any statute 
                        or Executive order;''.
                                 <all>
```