alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51102

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARLON ANTONIO DOMINGUEZ-BORJON, also

known as Marlo Dominguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-373-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marlon Antonio

Dominguez-Borjon raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<CIK>                                               0000812818
<NAME>                                    Hutton Investors Futures Fund, L.P. II

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                      21,460,655
<SECURITIES>                                                    31,513
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            21,492,168
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              21,492,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          211,045
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  21,281,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                21,492,168
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              (612,035)
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               269,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (881,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (881,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (249.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1773072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   128605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1903218
<PP&E>                                        19342701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6171571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                19735381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1445622
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    14518783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  19735381
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                665956
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                280308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               44047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 654816
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             654816
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    654816
<EPS-BASIC>                                      11.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.05


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31987R1708 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31987R1708

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1708/87 of 15 June 1987 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles **

*
Official Journal L 160 , 20/06/1987 P. 0001 - 0010 Finnish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 3 P. 0022 Swedish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 3 P. 0022 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1708/87

of 15 June 1987

concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and in particular Article 43 thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 167 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opnion of the European Parliament,

Whereas the Agreement between the Republic of Seychelles and the European Economic Community on fishing off Seychelles, signed at Brussels on 23 May 1985 (2), has been denounced by the Republic of Seychelles at the end of its first three-year period of application;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 12 of the Agreement, the Community and the Republic of Seychelles have conducted negotiations in order to determine the necessary amendments to the Agreement;

Whereas, as a result of those negotiations, a new Agreement was initialled on 3 December 1986; whereas it is in the Community's interest to approve this Agreement;

Whereas, as a result of those negotiations, a new Agreement was initialled on 3 December 1986; whereas it is in the Community's interest to approve this Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Regulation.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community (3).

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 15 June 1987.

For the Council

The President

P. DE KEERSMAEKER

(1) OJ No C 81, 28. 3. 1987, p. 7.

(2) OJ No L 149, 8. 6. 1985, p. 1.

(3) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.
```

[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Notices]               
[Page 47796]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09au10-42]                         

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Vol. 75, No. 146, 
Friday July 30, 2010, page 44941.

ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 10 a.m.-12 Noon, Wednesday August 
4, 2010.

CHANGES TO MEETING: Agenda Item 2. Strategic Plan Has Been Postponed.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: August 4, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19734 Filed 8-5-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### § 1.362 What records are excluded from this subpart?

The establishment and maintenance of records as required by this subpart does not extend to recipes for food as defined in § 1.328; financial data, pricing data, personnel data, research data, or sales data (other than shipment data regarding sales).
PUBLIC LAW 108–253—JUNE 25, 2004 118 STAT. 687

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3740 (S. 2153):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

May 18, considered and passed House.

June 9, continued and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–253

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 223 South

Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Oscar Scott Woody Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Oscar Scott Woody Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Oscar Scott

Woody Post Office Building’’.

Approved June 25, 2004.

June 25, 2004

[H.R. 3740]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          26,130
<SECURITIES>                                    62,684
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,861
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,230
<PP&E>                                         213,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 495,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           777
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   495,104
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,475
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,612
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,612
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40



</TABLE>
Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 2, 2017 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01159-CV IN THE INTEREST OF C.S. N. AND J.T.N., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-00-14691 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis By notice of appeal filed September 26, 2016, Tracy Nixon challenges the trial court’s September 12, 2016 child support contempt conditiona l release order and th e trial court’s order to withdraw admissions and substitute response. Because neither order appeared to be appealable, we directed Nixon to file a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez , 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (appella te courts have jurisdiction over final judgment and interlocut ory orders specifically authori zed as appealable by statute); In re Office of Atto rney Gen. of Tex. , 215 S.W.3d 913, 915-16 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (because contempt proceedings are not concerned with disposing of all claims and parties before trial court, a contempt order is not a final judgment and is not appealable). Nixon complied, but nothing in his brief persuades us we have jurisdiction over the complained-of–2– orders. 1 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a); Perez , 340 S.W.3d 447; Office of Attorney Gen. , 215 S.W.3d at 915.

161159F.P05

1 We allowed appellees an opportunity to re spond, but they did not file a response. /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.N. AND J.T.N., CHILDREN
No. 05-16-01159-CV On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-00-14691. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered February 2, 2017.
§ 200.334 Retention requirements for records. Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities must not impose any other record retention requirements upon non-Federal entities. The only exceptions are the following: ( a ) If any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken.
( b ) When the non-Federal entity is notified in writing by the Federal awarding agency, cognizant agency for audit, oversight agency for audit, cognizant agency for indirect costs, or pass-through entity to extend the retention period.
( c ) Records for real property and equipment acquired with Federal funds must be retained for 3 years after final disposition.
( d ) When records are transferred to or maintained by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity, the 3-year retention requirement is not applicable to the non-Federal entity.
( e ) Records for program income transactions after the period of performance. In some cases recipients must report program income after the period of performance. Where there is such a requirement, the retention period for the records pertaining to the earning of the program income starts from the end of the non-Federal entity's fiscal year in which the program income is earned.
( f ) Indirect cost rate proposals and cost allocations plans. This paragraph applies to the following types of documents and their supporting records: Indirect cost rate computations or proposals, cost allocation plans, and any similar accounting computations of the rate at which a particular group of costs is chargeable (such as computer usage chargeback rates or composite fringe benefit rates). ( 1 ) *If submitted for negotiation.* If the proposal, plan, or other computation is required to be submitted to the Federal Government (or to the pass-through entity) to form the basis for negotiation of the rate, then the 3-year retention period for its supporting records starts from the date of such submission.
( 2 ) *If not submitted for negotiation.* If the proposal, plan, or other computation is not required to be submitted to the Federal Government (or to the pass-through entity) for negotiation purposes, then the 3-year retention period for the proposal, plan, or computation and its supporting records starts from the end of the fiscal year (or other accounting period) covered by the proposal, plan, or other computation.
2008-0073.

#### In re Thomas.

Crawford App. No. 3-07-20, 2007-0hio-6970. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal involving termination of parental rights/adoption. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of *1498the court of appeals’ decision pending appeal,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
#### ST. JAMES *v.*ERSKINE.

Deeds — Removal of Timber — Reasonable Time — Notice.

Plaintiff deeded to defendant all the timber on certain property with the right to enter upon and cut and remove the same “at anytime thereafter.” *Held,*that defendant was entitled to a reasonable time after notice in which to remove the timber. *Huron Land Co.*v. *Davison,*131 Mich. 86.

Error to Mackinac; Shepherd, J.

Submitted January 13, 1909.

(Docket No. 81.)

Decided March 3, 1909.

Ejectment by Mary St. James against John D. Erskine. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*James McNamara & Son,*for appellant.

*Benjamin & Quay,*for appellee.

Plaintiff and appellant has made no such statement as Supreme Court Rule 40 requires. However, as the case is a simple one, and the facts are found by the circuit judge, we will dispose of the case without requiring such statement. The action is ejectment. Plaintiff is the owner of the original title. Defendant obtained a tax title upon the land. A settlement was effected, by which the defendant executed a quitclaim deed to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff executed to the defendant a quitclaim deed, conveying to him “all the timber of every nature and description now standing or fallen on the land [describing it], with the right to enter upon and cut and remove said timber *at any time*thereafter.” This arrangement was made in 1902. The bulk of the timber had previously been cut and removed from the land by the plaintiff. The defendánt went upon the land, and took only such possession as consisted in the removal of a *607portion of the timber conveyed. Shortly after the settlement plaintiff removed from the State of Michigan, and has continued a nonresident since. She did not desire the premises for cultivation or personal use. She gave defendant no notice, actual or constructive, to cut and remove the timber. Defendant claimed no right, title, or interest in and to the land, except to enter, cut, and remove the timber. The court held as a conclusion of law that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and entered judgment for the defendant.

Grant, J.

*(after stating the facts).*While the defendant had had a reasonable time, prior to the bringing of this suit, within which to remove the timber, yet th© deed from plaintiff to him gave him the right of removal at any time thereafter. As found by the trial court, the timber could all have been removed within two years. We held in *Huron Land Co.*v. *Davison,*131 Mich. 86, under a clause in a deed “reserving all pine and hemlock timber ” (the deed being silent as to the time for removal), that the plaintiff (the owner of the timber) was entitled to reasonable time after notice to remove. This case is ruled by that.

Judgment affirmed.

Blair, C. J., and Montgomery, Ostrander, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23







December 22, 1997



NV Koninklijke KNP BT
Hoogoorddreef 62
1101 BE Amsterdam ZO
The Netherlands


Ladies & Gentlemen:


We hereby confirm that BT Office Products International, Inc. ("BT OPI") shall
indemnify you against and hold you harmless in respect of any and all claims
from third parties against our group companies Veenman Kantoormachines B.V.,
Veenman Office Management B.V., Direct Dealer Services B. V., and Repro Copiers
Nederland B.V., as well as BT Office Products Europe B.V., BT Office Products
Europe C.V., UK Bel B.V., Kuipers Centrum voor Kantoorefficiency B.V., Jonkers
International B.V., Blees van Os B.V., and Tim voor Kantoor B.V. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, BT OPI shall have no such indemnification obligation to you for
any claims for which you are contractually obligated to indemnify BT OPI
purusant to the terms of the Tax Matters Agreement dated as of July 1, 1995 or
any other agreement between you and BT OPI.

Very truly yours,

BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By:      /s/ Francis J. Leonard
         ----------------------
         Francis J. Leonard
         Vice President Finance and Chief
              Financial Officer
#### § 1316.68 Copies of petitions for judicial review.

Copies of petitions for judicial review, filed pursuant to section 507 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 877) shall be delivered to and served upon the Administrator in quintuplicate. The Administrator shall certify the record of the hearing and shall file the certified record in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals.

[36 FR 7820, Apr. 24, 1971. Redesignated at 44 FR 42179, July 19, 1979]