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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50338

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISSAC MARTINEZ-CORTEZ, also known as Rigoberto

Montanyo-Cortez 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-1918

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Issac Martinez-Cortez (Martinez) has moved

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez has been deported and has not filed

a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the record and

counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 06-50338

2

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, see

5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot.
#### § 177.310 Satisfactory service as a design basis.

When scantlings for the hull, deckhouse, and frames of the vessel differ from those specified by the standards listed in § 177.300 of this part, and the owner can demonstrate that the vessel, or another vessel approximating the same size, power, and displacement, has been built to such scantlings and has been in satisfactory service insofar as structural adequacy is concerned for a period of at least 5 years, such scantlings may be approved by the cognizant OCMI instead of the scantlings required by the applicable standards specified in § 177.300 of this part.
#### § 117.10 Applicability to vessels on an international voyage.

A vessel on an international voyage subject to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, (SOLAS) must meet the requirements in subchapter W of this chapter for passenger vessels in the same service, instead of the requirements of this part.

[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51350, Sept. 30, 1997]
Skip Navigation- About MCC 
- Selection Criteria 
- Programs & Activities 
- Countries & Country   Tools 
- Results 
- Press & Public Affairs 
- Jobs 
- Contracts & Procurements 
- Contact MCC 
Skip Navigation- Board of   Directors 
- Executive   Profiles 
- Organization   Chart 
- Reports &   Notifications 
- Speakers   Bureau 
- Blogs 
Home > About MCC > Reports & Notifications > Annual ReportsAnnual Reports2009 Annual Report2007 Performance and Accountability Report2008 Performance and Accountability Report2009 Agency Financial Report2008 Annual Report2007 Annual Report2006 Annual Report2005 Annual Report2004 Annual Report
(mt)
Skip Navigation- RSS 
- Privacy   Policy 
- Plug   Ins 
- FOIA 
- No   Fear Act 
- Fraud   & Corruption Policy 
- Inspector General 
- Subscribe 
- Contact   MCC 
sitemap xml
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: August 01, 2017 

 

Mr. Thomas J. Davis 

Mr. Eric J. Pelton 

Kienbaum, Opperwall, Hardy & Pelton 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

Mr. Michael E. Freifeld 

Law Office of Glen N. Lenhoff 

328 S. Saginaw Street 

8th Floor, North Building 

Flint, MI 48502 

 Re: Case No. 17-1093, William Smith v. Melany Gavulic, et al

Originating Case No. : 2:15-cv-10288 

Dear Counsel, 

 The Court issued the enclosed opinion today in this case. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 

s/Cathryn Lovely for Robin Johnson 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7039 

cc: Mr. David J. Weaver 

Enclosure 

Mandate to issue 

Case 2:15-cv-10288-LJM-APP ECF No. 48, PageID.1802 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 3 Case: 17-1093 Document: 26-1 Filed: 08/01/2017 Page: 1 (1 of 3)
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION 

File Name: 17a0449n.06 

No. 17-1093 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM D. SMITH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MELANY GAVULIC; HURLEY MEDICAL 

CENTER, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

BEFORE: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

In this employment-discrimination case, plaintiff William Smith, former General Counsel 

to Hurley Medical Center, appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in 

favor of defendants Hurley and its CEO, Melany Gavulic. The case arises from Hurley’s Board 

of Managers’ decision to terminate Smith’s employment on Gavulic’s recommendation, which 

Smith alleges was an act of racial discrimination and retaliation for raising a complaint of racial 

discrimination against Gavulic. Smith’s complaint alleged four types of claims: a racial 

discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a First Amendment retaliation claim, and violation 

of Michigan’s Whistle-Blowers’ Protection Act, M.C.L. § 15.361 et seq., and Elliott-Larsen 

Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in 

favor of defendants on each claim, and plaintiff appealed. 

Case 2:15-cv-10288-LJM-APP ECF No. 48, PageID.1803 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 3 Case: 17-1093 Document: 26-2 Filed: 08/01/2017 Page: 1 (2 of 3)
No. 17-1093, Smith v. Gavulic, et al. 

-2- 

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that 

the district court’s thorough and well-written opinion correctly articulates and applies the 

applicable law to undisputed facts and that the issuance of a full written opinion by this court 

would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s 

opinion, we affirm. 

Case 2:15-cv-10288-LJM-APP ECF No. 48, PageID.1804 Filed 08/01/17 Page 3 of 3 Case: 17-1093 Document: 26-2 Filed: 08/01/2017 Page: 2 (3 of 3)
§ 171.145 Drainage of a vessel with a cockpit. ( a ) Except as follows, the cockpit must be watertight: ( 1 ) A cockpit may have companionways if they comply with § 171.124(d).
( 2 ) A cockpit may have ventilation openings along its inner periphery if— ( i ) The vessel operates only on protected or partially protected waters;
( ii ) The ventilation openings are located as high as possible in the side of the cockpit; and
( iii ) The height of the ventilation opening does not exceed 2 inches (5 centimeters).
( b ) The cockpit must be designed to be self-bailing.
( c ) Scuppers installed in a cockpit must be located to allow rapid clearing of water in all probable conditions of list and trim.
( d ) Scuppers must have a combined area of at least the area given by either of the following equations: A = 0.1(D) square inches. A = 6.94(D) square centimeters. Where— A = the combined area of the scuppers in square inches (square centimeters). D = the area of the cockpit in square feet (square meters).
( e ) The cockpit deck of a vessel that operates on exposed or partially protected waters must be at least 10 inches (24.5 centimeters) above the deepest subdivision load line, unless the vessel complies with— ( 1 ) The intact stability requirements of § 171.150;
( 2 ) The Type II subdivision requirements in §§ 171.070, 171.072, and 171.073; and
( 3 ) The damage stability requirements in § 171.080.
( f ) The cockpit deck of all vessels that do not operate on exposed or partially protected waters must be located as high above the deepest subdivision load line as practicable.
[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51354, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2013225EN.01007202.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/72

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)

(Case T-515/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/159

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case 1967/2010-2) concerning an application for the registration of the word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Delphi Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Delphi Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
§ 111.79-15 Receptacles for refrigerated containers. Receptacles for refrigerated containers must meet one of the following: ( a ) Each receptacle for refrigerated containers must have a switch interlocked in such a way that the receptacle's contacts are deenergized before the making or breaking of the connection between the plug and receptacle contacts.
( b ) Each group of receptacles for refrigerated containers must have: ( 1 ) A switch near the receptacles that disconnects all power to those receptacles; and
( 2 ) A sign stating that the switch should be opened before cables are disconnected from the receptacles or refrigerated containers.
( c ) Each receptacle for refrigerated containers must be designed for circuit breaking service.
## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist JOSE L. CUELLAR United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20150375

Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) Deidra J. Fleming, Military Judge

Lieutenant Colonel Terri J. Erisman, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Colone l Mary J. Bradley, JA; Major Christopher D. Coleman, JA; Captain Payum Doroodia n, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Li eutenant Colonel A.G. Courie III, JA; Major Michael E. Korte, JA; Captain Austin L. Fenwick, JA (on brief).

4 October 2016

--------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opin ion and, as such, does not serve as precedent.

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to hi s plea, of possess ion of child pornog raphy, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Militar y Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for thirty-one m onths, and reduction to E-1. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the convening authority appr oved only so much of the adjudged sentence as provided for a dishonorable discharge, confinem ent for twenty-four months, and reduction to E-1.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raised two assignments of er ror. Because we find a new action is required under one assignment of error, we do not address, at this time, the remaining assignment of error or matters raised persona lly by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M .A. 1982).CUELLAR—ARMY 20150375

2 The government conceded that this case should be returned for a new action:

The government submitted an undated “Action” which was signed by BG Xavier T. Brunso n in his capacity as “acting commander.” A later promul gating order was signed on November 25, 2015 by CPT Ch ad Brinton “By Command of Major General James E. Kraft, Jr.” and attached to the

record. BG Brunson was no t the acting commander when he signed the document and th erefore was not authorized

to take action in this case. The appropriat e commander to sign the action woul d have been MG Kr aft, who was MG Darsie Rogers’s su ccessor-in-command.

We agree with both pa rties and hereby set aside the action a nd return the case

for a new action.

CONCLUSION

Both the undated conven ing authority’s action and the action dated 25

November 2015 are set aside. The record of trial is re turned to The Judge Advocate General for a new action by the same or a different convening authority in accordance with Article 60(c)-(e), UCMJ.

Senior Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge HERRING concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
First Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.46A 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This First Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into on the 11 day of January, 2005, among CSG SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“CSGS”), a Delaware corporation, CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“Systems”), a Delaware corporation, and EDWARD NAFUS (the “Executive”). CSGS and Systems collectively are referred to in this First Amendment and
the Employment Agreement as the “Companies”. 
  
 * * *

  
 WHEREAS, the Companies and the Executive entered into an
Employment Agreement dated November 17, 1998 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Companies desire to amend the Employment Agreement as herein set forth; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the agreements of the parties contained in this document, the Companies and the Executive
agree as follows: 
  
 1. Paragraph 10 of the Employment Agreement
hereby is amended by adding thereto at the end thereof a new subparagraph (m) reading as follows: 
  

	 	“(m)	If the Executive’s employment by the Companies under this agreement terminates for any reason other than pursuant to subparagraph (c) of this Paragraph 10, then,
notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement which would provide for a shorter period for the Executive’s continued participation in the group medical and hospital insurance and group dental insurance programs of the Companies after
the termination of the Executive’s employment with the Companies, the Companies at their expense agree to continue the Executive’s participation in the group medical and hospital insurance and group dental insurance programs of the
Companies which may be in effect from time to time and in which the Executive was participating at the effective date of the termination of his employment with the Companies (to the extent that such continued participation by the Executive is
permitted under the terms and conditions of such plans, unless such continued participation is restricted or prohibited by applicable governmental regulations governing such plans) for a period of one (1) year after the effective date of such
termination of the Executive’s employment with the Companies.” 

  
 2. Upon the execution of this First Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Employment Agreement between the parties shall mean the Employment Agreement as amended by this First Amendment. As amended
by this First Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this First Amendment to Employment Agreement to be
executed as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	 CSG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

	 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Neal C. Hansen


	 	 	 Neal C. Hansen, Chairman of the Board and

	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	
	 CSG SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Neal C. Hansen


	 	 	 Neal C. Hansen, Chairman of the Board and

	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer

		
	 	 	 /s/ Edward Nafus


	 	 	 Edward Nafus



  

 2
#### § 509.7 Presettlement conference.

The Commission on its own motion or initiative, or upon the application of a claimant for good cause shown, may direct that a presettlement conference be held with respect to any issue involved in a claim.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending October 29, 2005

|Filer                                      | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA | FBSEA          | Bank of the Federated States of Micronesia, Kolonia, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, to establish a limited service non-insured branch in Honolulu, Hawaii, pursuant to section 7(d)of the International Banking Act, and section 211.24(a)(1) of Regulation K. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                                 | Not available 
|Federal Register:                          | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2911

_____________________________
D ONALD E DWARD B ROOKS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael A. Flowers , Judge

. March 1, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.3 30 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Donald Edward Brooks, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
G-17(D) Account-Opening Sample (Line of Credit)

Interest Rate and Interest Charges

APR for Cash Advances 18.00%.

Minimum Interest Charge If you are charged interest, the charge will be no less than $1.50. 

Paying Interest You will be charged interest from the transaction date.

Fees

Annual Fee $20

Penalty Fees

 Late Payment $10 

 Over-the-Credit Limit $29 

How We Will Calculate Your Balance: We use a method called “average daily balance (including new purchases).” See 

your account agreement for more details. 

Billing Rights: Information on your rights to dispute transactions and how to exercise those rights is provided in your 

account agreement.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20089-1 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

LAMHAL MOSES BELL, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION REQUESTING A 

JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING LENGTH OF 

RRC/HALFWAY HOUSE PLACEMENT (ECF No. 173) 

 On May 6, 2015, Defendant Lamhal Moses Bell pleaded guilty to three 

offenses: a Hobbs Act robbery on January 18, 2015, using a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence (his Hobbs Act robbery on January 18, 2015), and a 

Hobbs Act robbery on February 1, 2015. (See Rule 11 Plea Agreement, ECF No. 55, 

PageID.136; Judgment, ECF No. 104, PageID.614.) Bell’s sentencing guidelines 

range was 141 to 155 months imprisonment. (See Rule 11 Plea Agreement, ECF No. 

55, PageID.138, 150.) On December 15, 2015, this Court sentenced Bell to 114 

months imprisonment: 30 months for each Hobbs Act robbery offense, to be served 

concurrently; and 84 months for using a firearm during and in relation to the first 

Hobbs Act robbery offense, to be served consecutively to his robbery counts. (See 

Judgment, ECF No. 104, PageID.614–615.) 
2 

 On March 16, 2021, Hobbs filed a motion in which he requested that the Court 

recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that he be placed is a residential re-entry and/or 

halfway house 12 months prior to the end of his sentence. (See Mot., ECF No. 173.) 

Hobbs filed a similar motion less than a year ago, and the Court denied that motion 

in a written order. (See Order, ECF No. 168.) For all of the same reasons that the 

Court denied Hobbs’ initial motion for a recommendation, Hobbs’ current motion is 

DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 2, 2021 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 2, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9761
#### § 188.10-5 Barge.

This term means any non-self-propelled vessel.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-622.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Government Quality Assurance 

 Memorandum of Understanding between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and POLAND 

Signed at Warsaw and Washington 

May 31 and June 22, 2007 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 POLAND 

Defense: Government Quality Assurance 

Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Warsaw and Washington 

 May 31and June 22, 2007; 

 Entered into force June 22, 2007.