alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has deter mined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-10051 Summary Calendar

_____________________

BILLY GENE DE LONY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director; DAN MORALES,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(7:96-CV-233)

_________________________________________________________________ July 7, 1997 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Billy Gene De Lony appeals the district court’s dismissal, as

frivolous, of his pro se , in forma pauperis civil rights complaint.

He contends that the court abused its discretion by concluding that

his complaint was barred under the principles stated in Heck v.

Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).- 2 -

Based on our review of the record and De Lony’s brief, we find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we A FFIRM for the reasons stated

by the district court. See De Lony v. Scott , No. 7:96-CV-0233-X

(N.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 1996); see also Edwards v. Balisok

,

___ U.S.

___, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589 (1997). De Lony’s motions to enlarge

the record and for jury consideration are DENIED

.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1900

ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; STEPHAN W. PETRI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70; GERALD SMITH, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head of Code 70 Carderock Division; M. KATHLEEN FOWLER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 709; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74; JAMES H. KING, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; JOHN C. DAVIES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 74; STEPHAN M. FARLEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 741; ROGER P. FORD, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7014 Carderock Division; DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06- cv-01245-AMD)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006),

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended,

29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2006), the Whistleblower Protection

Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1221 and 2302 (2006), and various state

law tort claims, as well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s orders. See Stoyanov v. Winter , No. 1:06-cv01245-AMD (D. Md. July 6, 2009; July 14, 2009). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.3710 Pacemaker repair or replacement material. ( a ) *Identification.* A pacemaker repair or replacement material is an adhesive, a sealant, a screw, a crimp, or any other material used to repair a pacemaker lead or to reconnect a pacemaker lead to a pacemaker pulse generator.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of PDP is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before November 21, 2011, for any pacemaker repair or replacement material device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before November 21, 2011, been found to be substantially equivalent to any pacemaker repair or replacement material device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other pacemaker repair or replacement material device shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17736, May 11, 1987; 76 FR 50666, Aug. 16, 2011]
No. 99-20549 -1-

* 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. 99-20549 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MIGUEL CHAIDEZ-ORANTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-504-1

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Juan Miguel Chaidez-Orantes appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court should have suppressed his prior deportationbecause he was deprived of due process during the administrativedeportation proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1228. He also argues that he need not establish actual prejudice in order to collaterally attack his prior deportation.No. 99-20549 -2-This court has rejected the arguments made by ChaidezOrantes in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 659-60 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 838 (2000). We therefore AFFIRM his conviction. Chaidez-Orantes also argues that the case should be remanded so that the district court may correct the judgment’s incorrect recitation that he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry and that non-existent remaining counts were dismissed on the Government’s motion. The Government concedes that the judgment contains the above-mentioned errors, but also asserts that the judgment erroneously states that Chaidez-Orantes was sentenced to “time served” rather than to a seven-month term. Accordingly, the case is remanded for the purpose of correcting the clerical errors in the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The amended judgment should clarify and/or correct the provision regarding Chaidez-Orantes’s term of imprisonment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
Exhibit 35.5



|     |                        |                              
|---- | ---------------------- | -----------------------------
|LOGO |                        | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
|     | D1086-120, 12th Floor 
|     | 550 South Tryon Street
|     | Charlotte, NC 28202   
|     | 1-800-326-1334        

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE &
ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2015-CCRE24 (the Agreement). Capitalized
terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement,
I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from August 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been
made under my supervision, and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of
March 2016.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
#### Larned *v.*Elliott et al.

[No. 19,407.

Filed July 10, 1900.]

From the Marion Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*J. J. M. La Follette*and *W. W. Thornton,*for appellant.

*W. L. Taylor,*Attorney-General, *Merrill Moores*and *C. C. Hadley,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

— If the laws of this State provide for the election of township trustees and township assessors at the November election, 1900, this case must be affirmed, otherwise it must be reversed.

An act of the legislature approved February 25, 1897 (Acts 1897, p. 64), provides that the time of holding the election of township trustees and assessors shall be changed from the general election in November,' 1898, to the general election in November, 1900, and at the general election every fourth year thereafter, and that said trustees and assessors shall qualify and enter upon the discharge of the duties of their respective offices at the expiration of ten days after such election.

Appellant insists, however, that said act is unconstitutional and void because it extended the terms of office of township trustees and assessors beyond the period of four years, in violation of article fifteen, section two of the Constitution which provides : “ But the General Assembly shall not create any office the tenure of which shall be longer than four years.” The same objection was urged against the validity of said act in *State*v. *Menaugh,*151 Ind. 260, and this court held that said act was not in violation of said provision of the Constitution. See, also, *State*v. *Burke,*154 Ind. 645; *Scott*v. *State,*151 Ind. 556, 561; *State*v. *Compson,*34 Ore. 25, 54 Pac. 349.

After a careful consideration of the question involved, we adhere to the conclusion reached in the case of *State*v. *Menaugh, supra,*that said act of 1897 (Acts 1897, p. 64), is constitutional, and that township trustees and assessors are to be elected at the November election, 1900, and enter upon the discharge of the duties of their respective offices as provided in said act.

The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.
Fw: clean RIA chapters for OMB, keeping under 5MB 12/16/2011 08:00 PM

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/16/2011 08:00 PM

----- From: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Amanda CurryBrown/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Alex Barron/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, DavidA Evans/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim DeMocker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/16/2011 07:58 PM Subject: clean RIA chapters for OMB, keeping under 5MB

Ron Evans Leader, Air Economics Group HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA Mail Drop C-439-02
919-541-5488
919-541-0839 fax

Chapter 4_mercuryHAPbenefits_1216_FINAL.docx

Chapter 3_CostEconomicEnergy_1216_FINAL.docx

Chapter 6_EmploymentandEconomicImpactsfinal.docx

Chapter 8_SummaryofCostsandBenefits_1216_FINAL.doc

Chapter 7_StatutoryandExecutiveOrderAnalyses_1216 FINAL.docx
# C_2014261EN.01005001.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/50

---

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos and Others v Commission

(Case T-477/14)

2014/C 261/78

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos, SL (Coruña, Spain); Blumaq, SA (Castellón, Spain); Grupo Ibérica de Congelados, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Inversiones Rentaragon, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
# C_2015016EN.01005001.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/50

---

Action brought on 17 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-133/14)

(2015/C 016/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, that decision applying the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 18 February 2014 fixing the calculation of the bonus applied to his pension rights acquired before he took up his functions at the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 18 February 2014 fixing the calculation of the bonus applied to his pension rights acquired before he took up his functions at the Commission;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4500 Cardiovascular surgical instruments. ( a ) *Identification.* Cardiovascular surgical instruments are surgical instruments that have special features for use in cardiovascular surgery. These devices include, e.g., forceps, retractors, and scissors.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 870.9.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25049, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38797, July 25, 2001]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4691]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Yakutat Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Yakutat Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Yakutat, 
Alaska. The purpose of the meeting is to continue business of the 
Yakutat Resource Advisory Committee. The committee was formed to carry 
out the requirements of the Secure Rural Schools and Selt-Determination 
Act of 2000. The agenda for this meeting is to review submitted project 
proposals and consider recommending projects for funding. Project 
proposals were due by March 19, 2010 to be considered at this meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 30, 2010 from 6-9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Kwaan Conference Room, 712 
Ocean Cape Drive, Yakutat, Alaska. Send written comments to Lee A. 
Benson, c/o Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 327, Yakutat, AK 99689, 
(907) 784-3359 or electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54383536313a273b3a1432277a3231307a2127"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92fef3f0f7fce1fdfcd2f4e1bcf4f7f6bce7e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee A. Benson, District Ranger and 
Designated Federal Official, Yakutat Ranger District, (907) 784-3359.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Council 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members. 
However, persons who wish to bring resource projects or other Resource 
Advisory Committee matters to the attention of the Council may file 
written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. 
Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written 
requests by March 30, 2010 will have the opportunity to address the 
Council at those sessions.

    Dated: February 19, 2010.
Lee A. Benson,
District Ranger, Yakutat Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2010-4691 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Yvonne Jaquith et al. *v.*Julie P. Revson et al.

*Elsie K. Nemore,*with whom was *Leon B. Nemore,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Edward J. Zamm,*for the appellant (named defendant) .

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1969

*Edward J. Zamm,*on the motion.

Submitted December 16, 1968

decided January 7, 1969

*Edward J. Zamm,*on the motion.

Submitted December 19, 1968

decided January 7, 1969

The motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.

The motion by the named defendant for review of the order of the trial court terminating the stay in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted, and the Superior Court is ordered to set aside its order terminating the stay.

The motion by the named defendant for permission to amend and clarify her appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted to the extent of allowing the appeal to be tafeen only from the decision of the Superior Court rendered October 31, 1968, denying her motion to open the judgment of nonsuit.
# C_2014409EN.01004901.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/49

---

Action brought on 15 August 2014 — Diapharm v Commission

(Case T-620/14)

2014/C 409/70

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, N. Hußmann and T. Guttau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), did not request that the European Food Safety Authority carry out the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant substances with a view to the adoption of a Community list of permitted claims in respect of plant substances pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of all the necessary conditions for the use of those claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), did not request that the European Food Safety Authority carry out the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant substances with a view to the adoption of a Community list of permitted claims in respect of plant substances pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of all the necessary conditions for the use of those claims;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1)

1

In the applicant’s view the inaction of the Commission infringes Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, which stipulates a definite deadline for implementation of 31 January 2010. The applicant submits that the Commission allowed that deadline to pass. The applicant submits in that connection that the Commission is not entitled to suspend the scientific assessment of health claims in respect of plant substances for an unlimited period. According to the applicant, the inaction on the part of the defendant fosters legal fragmentation throughout the European Union and is at variance with the fundamental purpose of the regulation of creating uniform rules throughout Europe.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

1

---