alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50177

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO RAFAEL OLIVAS-LOZANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-239-1

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rodolfo Rafael Olivas-Lozano has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Olivas-Lozano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50177 Document: 00514664878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2018
No. 18-50177

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-50177 Document: 00514664878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2018
#### Henry WHITE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-60847.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 3, 2006.

William F. Riley, Riley & Callaway, Natchez, MS, Cecil Maison Heidelberg, Maison Heidelberg, Ridgeland, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edley Hicks Jones, III, Wells, Marble & Hurst, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reviewing the record *de novo,*we affirm for the following reasons:

> 1. “[F]ederal courts ... apply federal evidentiary rules rather than state spoliation laws in diversity suits.” *Condrey v. SunTrust Bank of Ga.,*431 F.3d 191, 203 (5th Cir.2005). “ ‘[T]he circumstances of the act must manifest bad faith. Mere negligence is not enough, for it does not sustain an inference of consciousness of a weak ease.’ ” *Vick v. Tex. Employment Comm’n,*514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir.1975). Neither the loss of Casey’s photographs nor Metcalfs written statements rise to the level of bad faith.

> 2. In *Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc.,*492 So.2d 283, 285 (Miss.1986), the Mississippi Supreme Court explained that a 2.5 hour interval between inspection and the time of accident was not sufficient to establish constructive notice. Metcalfs deposition testimony was emphatic that she did not see any fluid when she conducted her inspection twenty minutes before White’s slip. Appellant does not contradict the time of inspection. There is no evidence that the fluid was on the floor earlier.

Affirmed.

*

 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.
#### § 4.20 Purpose.

In the interest of establishing and maintaining uniformity to the extent feasible, this subpart sets forth general rules applicable to all types of proceedings before the Hearings Division and the several Appeals Boards of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 15 November 2005

in Case C-392/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Customs duties legally owing not subsequently recovered following an error by the national customs authorities - Financial liability of Member States)

(2005/C 330/01)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-392/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H.-P. Hartvig and G. Wilms) v Kingdom of Denmark, (Agent: J. Molde), supported by Kingdom of Belgium, (Agent: A. Snoecx), Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by D. Sellner and U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwälte), Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. de Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel), Portuguese Republic, (Agents: L. Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves and J.A. dos Anjos), Kingdom of Sweden, (Agents: A. Kruse, K. Wistrand and A. Falk), — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 November 2002 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), P. Kūris, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 November 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 31,8.2.2003.

----
BISHOP TRIBAL COUNCIL 

Thursday, July 10, 2014 

Fred Leutner 

Office of Science & Technology (Mail Code 4305T) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington DC 20460 

RE: Potential Reinterpretation ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) Provisions regarding Treatment 

in a Similar Manner to States (TAS) 

Dear Mr. Leutner: 

It has come to the attention of the Bishop Paiute Tribe that the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is considering a Reinterpretation of the rules governing the burden placed on 

Tribes applying for T AS under the CW A for Section 303( c), Water Quality Standards. Currently, 

Tribes must demonstrate their own inherent regulatory authority, which is challenging and 

resource intensive. This burden alone has cost Tribes both time and funds to meet this 

requirement. The potential reinterpretation which would eliminate the "Montana Test" by 

stating that CW A Section 518 is a delegation by Congress to eligible Tribes to administer CW A 

regulatory programs over their entire reservations regardless of land ownership will allow Tribes 

to exercise their sovereignty by our ability and willingness to accept this delegation. 

The Bishop Paiute Tribe (BPT) Water Quality Control Program began in 1998,just two years 

after the Tribal Environmental Management Office (EMO) was established. During the 

formation of the Water Quality Control Program the EMO initiated a complete assessment of 

waters within the exterior boundaries of the Bishop Paiute Reservation. After a lengthy process 

of staff and legal review that took many years, in April 2006, the Bishop Paiute Tribe was 

granted "Treatment in the Same Manner as a State (TAS)" under §518(e) of the Clean Water Act 

PAIUTE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING • 50 TU SU LANE • BISHOP, CA 93514 

PHONE (760) 873-3584 • FAX (760) 873-4143 
(CWA) for purposes of administering CWA §303(c) and §401. Although the Tribe is only 875 

acres and is entirely trust land with no fee lands, I estimate that it certainly cost both EPA staff 

and Tribal staff and legal consultants in the order of tens of thousands of dollars to address and 

approve theTAS. Answering agency correspondence regarding questions over the Tribe's 

jurisdictional over the two small creeks and several small ditches contained within our 

reservation took the most time of the T AS application process. 

The Bishop Paiute Tribe believes EPA's reinterpretation will clarify and strengthen the inherent 

regulatory authority of sovereign tribes to implement EPA statutes within reservations regardless 

of land ownership. Reinterpretation would validate the legal basis for tribal assertion of 

regulatory jurisdiction under the CW A and decrease the administrative burden of case-by-case 

assessments of tribal authority. 

As Tribal leader of the Bishop Paiute Tribe, I support EPA's efforts to reinterpret provisions of 

the CW A regarding the T AS process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on 

this potential rule change. 

Dale Delgado, Jr. 

Tribal Chairman 

PAIUTE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING • 50 TU SU LANE • BISHOP, CA 93514 

PHONE (760) 873-3584 • FAX (760) 873-414 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3/31/99
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000894972
<NAME> CHANCELLOR MEDIA CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,844
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,277
<PP&E>                                       1,505,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                 109,477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,447,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,865
<BONDS>                                      4,378,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    409,500
<COMMON>                                         1,431
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,447,590
<SALES>                                        350,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,265
<CGS>                                           43,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  403,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (133,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (30,126)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (103,445)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (109,862)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)
        

</TABLE>
§ 46.135 Incorporation of referenced documents into NEPA analysis. ( a ) The Responsible Official must determine that the analysis and assumptions used in the referenced document are appropriate for the analysis at hand.
( b ) Citations of specific information or analysis from other source documents should include the pertinent page numbers or other relevant identifying information.
( c ) Publications incorporated into NEPA analysis by reference must be listed in the bibliography. Such publications must be readily available for review and, when not readily available, they must be made available for review as part of the record supporting the proposed action.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors
and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY (Company), a Delaware
corporation, acting in its capacity as general partner of TE Products Pipeline
Company, Limited Partnership, does hereby constitute and appoint CHARLES H.
LEONARD, JAMES C. RUTH, AND WILLIAM L. THACKER, and each of them, his or her
true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things, and
execute any and all instruments which, with the advise and consent of Counsel,
said attorney and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company to
comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as Amended, and any rules, regulation,
and requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including
specifically, but without limitation thereof, to sign his or her name as a
director and/or officer of the Company to the Form 10-K Report for TE Products
Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership for the year ended December 31, 1999, and
to any instrument or document filed as a part of, or in accordance with, said
Form 10-K or Amendment thereto; and the undersigned do hereby ratify and confirm
all that said attorney and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this
14th day of January, 2000.


/s/ William L. Thacker                    /s/ Fred J. Fowler
----------------------                    -------------------------------------
William L. Thacker                        Fred J. Fowler



/s/ Ruth G. Shaw                          /s/ Jim W. Mogg
----------------------                    -------------------------------------
Ruth G. Shaw                              Jim W. Mogg



/s/ Richard J. Osborne                    /s/ Derrill Cody
-----------------------                   -------------------------------------
Richard J. Osborne                        Derrill Cody



/s/ Milton Carroll                        /s/ Carl D. Clay
-------------------                       -------------------------------------
Milton Carroll                            Carl D. Clay



/s/ John P. DesBarres                     /s/ Charles H. Leonard
 ---------------------                    -------------------------------------
John P. DesBarres                         Charles H. Leonard
                                          Senior Vice President,
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### James E. Schaniel, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, George A. Schaniel, Respondent, v. John M. Sloan et al., Appellants.

Action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff who, when riding a bicycle, was struck by an automobile owned by defendant John M. Sloan and operated by defendant John M. Sloan, Jr. Judgment in favor of plaintiff reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event, unless within ten days from the entry of the order hereon plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict to the sum of $5,500, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the amount of the verdict is excessive. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
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 Myoffiz,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Chang, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



                              By   /s/  Michael Chang
                                ------------------------
                              Michael Chang
                              Chief Financial Officer


May 28, 2004
### §1928. Patent infringement action; disclaimer not filed

Whenever a judgment is rendered for the plaintiff in any patent infringement action involving a part of a patent and it appears that the patentee, in his specifications, claimed to be, but was not, the original and first inventor or discoverer of any material or substantial part of the thing patented, no costs shall be included in such judgment, unless the proper disclaimer has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office prior to the commencement of the action.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 957; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(b)(17)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–585.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §821 (R.S. §973).

Word "action" was substituted for "any suit at law or in equity" to conform with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Words "or decree" were omitted after "judgment," because a judgment under Rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by definition includes a decree.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "United States Patent and Trademark Office" for "Patent Office".

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

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 40

**Question 40:** Assume a licensee has defined its compliance year as January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993. What is the mechanism to change its definition of year? For example, the licensee wants to monitor from January 31, 1994 to January 30, 1995, how should it account for the lost days January 1 - 30, 1994? Is it acceptable to prorate the doses?

**Answer:** No. The question refers to the definition of "year" in 10 CFR 20.1003. The licensee is not allowed to make the one-step change as postulated in the example in the question because that change involves omitting certain days. Omitting days, even with dose proration, is not allowed. However, the license could accomplish the desired change in two steps, one step in each of two consecutive years, that would give a "year" beginning 1/31 of one calendar year and ending 1/30 of the following year. The first step, using the example, would be a change, at the beginning of 1993, to a "year" of 1/1/93 to 1/30/94 (13 months). The second step would be a change, at the beginning of 1994, to a "year" of 1/31/94 to 1/30/95. This two-step change meets the requirement of "years" that begin in January with no day omitted or duplicated in consecutive years.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, December 01, 2017
§ 423.15 How will Reclamation document closures or reopenings? ( a ) The authorized official must document the reason(s) for establishing any closure or reopening that occurs after April 17, 2006. The official must do this before the closure or reopening, except in the situations described in § 423.12(b). In such situations, the authorized official must complete the documentation as soon as practicable.
( b ) Documentation of a closure must cite one or more of the conditions for closure described in § 423.12 of this part.
( c ) Documentation of closures or reopenings will be available to the public upon request, except when the release of this documentation could result in a breach of national security or the security of Reclamation facilities.
307954995.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 0:20-cv-61023-RAR-Ruiz

MATTHEW BUCKLEY and

TOP GUN OPTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMMETT MOORE and 

TRADINGSCHOOLS.ORG

 Defendants.

 /

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Enlargement 

of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. This Court having considered the motion 

and all other relevant factors, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs will have until October 16, 2020, to respond to the 

Motion to Dismiss and Defendants will have until October 30, 2020 to file their reply.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at , Florida, this 

day of .

 

 Hon. Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II

 United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 23-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22751-DPG

NORA’S STYLE SALON INC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FARMER’S GROUP, INC. D/B/A

FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION and TRUCK 

INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendants.

 /

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Nora’s Style Salon Inc.,(“Plaintiff”), pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby gives notice that the claims against Defendants, Farmer’s 

Group, Inc., d/b/a Farmers Underwriters Association and Truck Insurance Exchange, 

(“Defendants”) in the above-captioned action are voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice. 

Dated: September 28, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz

Adam M. Moskowitz 

Florida Bar No. 984280

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

Adam A. Schwartzbaum 

Florida Bar No. 93014 

adams@moskowitz-law.com

Howard M. Bushman 

Florida Bar No. 0364230

howard@moskowitz-law.com

Joseph M. Kaye

Florida Bar No. 117520 

joseph@moskowitz-law.com

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Case 1:20-cv-22751-DPG Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 2
William F. “Chip” Merlin, Jr. 

cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com

New Jersey Bar No. 055182013 

Florida Bar No. 364721

Shane Smith 

ssmith@MerlinLawGroup.com

Florida Bar No. 53130 

MERLIN LAW GROUP

777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950

Tampa, FL 33602

Telephone: (813) 229-1000

Facsimile: (813) 229-3692

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on September 28, 

2020 with the Court via CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys 

of record. 

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz______

 ADAM M. MOSKOWITZ

 Florida Bar No. 984280

Case 1:20-cv-22751-DPG Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 2 of 2
----

Action brought on 19 September 2005 — Generalitat Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-357/05)

(2005/C 281/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties:

Applicant(s): Generalitat Valenciana (Valencia, Spain) (represented by José Vicente Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action arises out of Commission Decision C (97) 3882 of 5 December 1997, by virtue of which assistance of EUR 75 011 715 was granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project No 97/11/61/028 in Spain, called the ‘Project for the collection and treatment of waste water on the Mediterranean coast of the Autonomous Community of Valencia’ (a general project consisting of 12 different schemes). The original amount was later increased to EUR 92 742 913.

After carrying out an audit mission, the Commission uncovered a series of irregularities in the award procedure followed, essentially the use of experience as a criterion for the award of contracts and the average price method as the procedure for evaluating the price tendered. In the contested decision, which reduces the total assistance granted by EUR 2 217 537, the defendant considers that there have been infringements of Articles 18 and 30 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) and of Article 2 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues:

The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactive effect and proportionality.

----

(1)OJ L 199 of 9 August 1993, p. 54.

----