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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

October 7, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50260

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RIGOBERTO LAIJA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1462-ALL

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rigoberto Laija-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled

substance, i.e., more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, and making

a false statement. Laija-Garcia argues that the district court

erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after the

stop of his car by a Border Patrol agent. 

Laija-Garcia was stopped at approximately 1:00 a.m. by an

experienced Border Patrol agent who observed him driving slowly
No. 04-50260

-2-

near the border in an area frequented by drug traffickers on a

dead-end road typically used only by ranchers during daylight

hours. The agent testified that, when he shone a flashlight on

Laija-Garcia, Laija-Garcia’s eyes opened wide, he turned his body

away, and he accelerated past the agent towards the dead end. 

Additionally, the agent was aware that, on at least two recent

occasions, drug smugglers had successfully imported drugs through

the same area, and the stop occurred soon after a sensor alarm

had sounded and near four large bundles of marijuana.

Thus, the totality of the circumstances indicates that the

Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion supported by

articulable facts that criminal activity was afoot. See United

States v. Neufeld-Neufeld, 338 F.3d 374, 378-80 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
HomeSingapore

# Singapore

114 items

        -    Media Note  		Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs Morgenthau’s Travel to Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 26, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 26, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Special Advisor on International Disability Rights Minkara’s Travel to Sri Lanka, Nepal, Laos, and Singapore	  March 22, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Daniel J. Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs	  Daniel J. KritenbrinkMarch 7, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement from the 6th U.S.-Singapore Strategic Partnership Dialogue	  February 28, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kritenbrink’s Travel to Singapore, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Brunei	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador Murray’s Travel to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore 	  February 13, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador Fick’s Travel to Singapore	  January 31, 2024 
        -    Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs  		Trade and Investment – IPEF Supply Chain Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Singapore, January 12, 2024	   
        -    DipNote  		The U.S. APEC 2023 Host Year Elevated Stakeholder Voices	  Matt MurrayDecember 15, 2023 

123…12next page

Back to Top
# C_2005205EN.01003501.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/35

---

Action brought on 29 June 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-241/05)

(2005/C 205/62)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 14 April 2005 in Case R 843/2004-1 in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 14 April 2005 in Case R 843/2004-1 in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark concerned: | The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a lilac six petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 523 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of the application |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 |

Community trade mark concerned:

The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a lilac six petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 523

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94

---
# Federal Aviation Administration

RGL Home **Advisory Circular****Advisory Circular Information****Advisory Circular Information**** ****AC Number:**AC 25.795-4**Date:**10/24/2008** ****Change Description:**** ****Subject:**Passenger Cabin Smoke Protection** ****Related Regulation(s):**Unknown Part**Section Number(s):**Unknown Section** ****Cancels:****Initiating Office:**ANM-100** ****Advisory Circular in PDF Format:**** ****Comments****Comments**
Comments:
FAA.gov Home |			Privacy Policy |			Web Policies & Notices |			Contact Us |			Help

**Readers & Viewers:**PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | Zip
#### CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a foreign corporation, Appellants, v. Cheryl FILLMORE, a minor by and through her mother and next friend, Sherylyn Fillmore, Individually, Appellees.

No. 74-784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 10, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1975.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy and Stephen T. Brown, Miami, for appellants.

Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, George P. Telepas, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.

ROBERT A. GREEN, Jr., Associate Judge.

The appellant, defendant below, seeks interlocutory review of a partial summary judgment for the appellees as to liability under a no fault automobile insurance policy.

The appellee, Cheryl Fillmore, a five-year old child, sustained certain personal injuries when she was struck by a commercial vehicle while she was a pedestrian. At the time of the accident she resided in a household with her mother and grandmother. Her grandmother had a no fault automobile insurance policy issued by the appellant, which provided for personal injury protection covering injuries sustained by an insured when struck by a motor vehicle. A claim was filed for Cheryl Fillmore’s injuries, which the appellant denied claiming a commercial tow truck was not a motor vehicle. As a result, the appellees filed the instant declaratory judgment action. Appellant defended, alleging no coverage. The parties stipulated as to the basic facts and the appellees moved for a summary judgment as to liability. After hearing on the motion, the trial court entered the partial summary judgment appealed herein. We affirm.

The issue turns on the definition of “motor vehicle” in § 627.732(1), Fla.Stat. *549The trial judge correctly held the vehicle involved was within the definition. See: DeThorne v. Beck, Fla.App.1973, 280 So.2d 448.

In a pedestrian case, such as this, where the action is against the plaintiff-appellee’s insurance carrier for personal injury protection benefits, such an interpretation is the only reasonable one. For purposes of being entitled to these benefits, subject to the carrier’s right to claim against the third party tortfeasor for indemnification, it cannot matter whether the tow truck is a “commercial vehicle”.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2869 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2869

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2869

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE FOR 
              HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN KENTUCKY.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 6641, the Commission shall, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and 
public interest requirements of that section and the Commission's 
procedures under that section, extend until June 15, 1998, the time 
period during which the licensee is required to commence construction 
of the project.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission under section 13 
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection 
(a).
    (c) Reinstatment of License.--The Commission is authorized to 
reinstate the license for the project referred to in subsection (a), 
effective as of the date of its expiration or termination.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
~MINNESOTA BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP 

April 23, 2015 

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretaries Foxx and Kerry: 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

Secretary of State 

US Department of State 

2201 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

It has recently come to my attention that three Gulf airline carriers-Qatar Airways, Etihad Airlines, and 

Emirates Airline-are being subsidized by their respective governments, Qatar and the United Arab 

Emirates (UAE), to a degree that is in violation of Open Skies policy and detrimental to the health of the 

U.S. airline industry. With eleven million Americans relying on a vibrant, healthy airline industry for their 

livelihood it is important that this situation is addressed. 

In Minnesota, Delta is the 8th largest private employer with 12,000 jobs including affiliates, subsidiaries 

and partners. In addition, Minnesota has more fortune 500 companies per capita than all states except 

Connecticut, and is home to many Fortune 100 companies including United Health Group, Target, Best 

Buy, CHS, Supervalu, as well as the largest privately held corporation in the world, Cargill. As Executive 

Director of the Minnesota Business Partnership, I am well aware that our members rely heavily upon the 

Delta Air Lines hub at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), as well as other regional airports 

around the state, to connect with customers and markets around the country and around the world. 

Minnesota businesses and residents depend on a robust U.S. airline industry and the unfair practices of 

the Qatar and UAE governments have jeopardized that balance. Over the past decade, Gulf carriers have 

received over 42 billion dollars in subsidies and interest-free loans from their respective governments. 

According to a recent USA Today editorial, "The three Persian Gulf airlines are buying jets and adding 

routes at an awe-inspiring pace." They are doing this by breaking the rules and we cannot allow this to 

continue. 

Minnesota's strong economy is due in part to regular, convenient, world-wide air service, and I ask that 

you stand up for our business and for American jobs by opening up consultations with the governments 

of Qatar and the UAE in regards to this matter. 

Lets keep Open Skies open and fair for all. 

Sincerely, 

Charli~ Weaver 

Executive Director 

GROWING MINNESOTA'S FUTURE 80S. EIGHTH STREET . ~530 IDS CENTE~ MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402 

T 612 370 0840 F 612 334 3086 MNBP.COM 

s 10-150506-014 
ti'MINNESOTA BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP 

510-150506-014 

The· Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

•I• IJjl l111111 11 J'l II ,Jlljl •pljllll''lllll1)u1ll•JIJI11JI•JIII1 
\ :::~ ... --;' .. ; . "·\: ~ .. · ·-; . ... "<-...... ~ . 't 

. \ ... , ""' . ·~ 

/ 

s 10-150506-014 

---

·.r .. . . . ~ 

. . -

,I ·'· 

...
Exhibit
32



Certification
of Chief Executive Officer AND Chief financial officerPursuant to Rule 13(a) or 15(d)
under the securities exchange act Of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



he
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 3, 2018 of Fred’s,
Inc. (the “Company”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:
    December 13, 2018 |  | /s/
    Joseph M. Anto                                             
|--------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                            |  | Joseph M. Anto,
    Interim Chief Executive Officer/               
|                            |  | Executive Vice President,
    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary





34
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Clovers HAYES v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 65710.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Clovers Hayes, applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. Parish of E. Baton Rouge. Number Unknown.

Writ denied.
### Evaluation of the Surface-Water Quantity, Surface-Water Quality, and Rainfall Data-Collection Programs in Hawaii, 1994

By: Richard A. Fontaine

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wri954212

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2005182EN.01003302.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-384/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 182/59)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

By order of 28 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-384/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.

1

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

HARMONY TERRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

, Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 1155

[ June 9, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Andrea Gundersen , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18

-

028391

.

Beth G. Lindie and Jeremy M. Zubkoff of Esler & Lindie, P.A., Fort

Lauderdale, for appellant.

David Rosenberg of Rob ertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners,

PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Realty Income Partnership
I, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffery D. Hahn, Vice President and Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer of Dean Witter Realty Income Properties I Inc., the Managing
General Partner of the Partnership, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the
      Partnership.

/s/ Jeffrey D. Hahn
-------------------
Jeffrey D. Hahn
Vice President and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Dean Witter Realty Income Properties I, Inc., as
Managing General Partner of Dean Witter Realty Income
Partnership I, L.P.


Date: September 13, 2002
#### Glenn WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1981.

Glenn Wilson, in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

*1185PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.
#### WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ORLEANS v. Michael C. GUILBAULT and Lilly Streckfus Guilbault.

No. 67046.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 11, 1980.

In re Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Orleans. No. 79-16989.

Writ granted.

WATSON, J., recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3002 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3002

   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exempt certain small 
  lenders from the audit requirements of the guaranteed student loan 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1996

   Mr. Ewing (for himself and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and 
                       Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exempt certain small 
  lenders from the audit requirements of the guaranteed student loan 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM AUDIT REQUIREMENT.

    Section 428(b)(1)(U)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(U)(iii)) is amended by inserting after ``compliance 
audit of each lender'' the following: ``that has a loan portfolio under 
this part that exceeds $10,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```