alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 287/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 287 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 632 September 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 287

English edition

Legislation

Volume 632 September 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RULES OF PROCEDURE |
| | * | College Decision 2020-04 of 15 July 2020 on internal rules concerning restrictions of certain data subject rights in relation to the processing of personal data in the framework of activities carried out by Eurojust | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RULES OF PROCEDURE

*

College Decision 2020-04 of 15 July 2020 on internal rules concerning restrictions of certain data subject rights in relation to the processing of personal data in the framework of activities carried out by Eurojust

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Before the First Division,

April 25, 1963

No. 67627.

#### Baruch Petranker Import Co., Inc., and Thornley & Pitt *v.*United States,

protest 61/23056 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

OSCAR TRINIDAD, a married man,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, BETHEL

SCHOOL DISTRICT; and LAURIE

BARCKLEY and “JOHN DOE” BARCKLEY,

a marital community; and THOMAS SIEGEL

and “JANE DOE” SIEGEL, a marital

community; and CLIFF ANDERSON and

“JANE DOE” ANDERSON, a marital

community; and KIM HANSEN and “JOHN

DOE” HANSEN, a marital community; and

SUSAN SMITH and “JOHN DOE” SMITH, a

marital community; and KENNETH BLAIR

and “JANE DOE” BLAIR, a marital

community; and JOY COOK and “JOHN

DOE” COOK, a marital community; DENNIS

TOWNSEND and “JANE DOE”

TOWNSEND, a marital community; and

BRENDA ROGERS and “JOHN DOE”

ROGERS, a marital community,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5804FDB

ORDER GRANTING

CONTINUANCE

The parties together request a continuance of this matter and the issuance of a new

scheduling order based on the affidavits of counsel in the case. The affidavits reflect that little

Case 3:05-cv-05804-FDB Document 16 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

discovery has been done in this case, other than compliance with the “lay-down” rules, and that

Plaintiff’s new attorney appeared in January 2007. The parties believe that additional discovery and

consideration of witnesses will enhance their understanding of the issues, thus moderating their

positions with a view toward possible settlement. The parties indicate that they have dates available

in October 2007 or later for trial. 

The Court’s schedule is such that it could grant a new trial date of Monday, October 29,

2007 without affecting any other previously set trials. ACCORDINGLY, 

IT IS ORDERED: The parties motion for a continuance [Dkt. # 14] is GRANTED and a new

trial date is set for Monday, October 29, 2007; the Clerk shall issue a new scheduling order

accordingly. 

DATED this 1st day of March, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05804-FDB Document 16 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 2
No. P66/359.

#### Toyomenka, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 64/2409 (New York).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of table knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *National Carloading Corp.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2529), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:06-cr-00200-JPD Document 7 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00200-JPD Document 7 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00200-JPD Document 7 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00200-JPD Document 7 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 4
No. 69333.

#### Metro Auto Parts, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/9095 and 64/9110 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of spark plugs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRUDENTIAL LOCATIONS LLC, a  No. 09-16995

Hawaii limited liability company, D.C. No.

Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:09-cv-00128-

v.  SOM-KSC

District of Hawaii, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

Honolulu URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant-Appellee. ORDER 

Filed January 18, 2012

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, William A. Fletcher, and

Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on June 9, 2011, and

published at 648 F.3d 768, is VACATED. 

The panel will issue a further order regarding the time and

place of argument and the issues to be addressed at argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

355
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 5075 5 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ALFREDO ESTRADA

- EUGENIO, also known as Alfredo Erasto Estrada

Eugenio , Defendant

- Appellant

_______________________________ Cons olidated w ith 19

- 50763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ALFREDO ESTRADA

- EUGENIO, also known as Juan Eugenio Medina, also known as Alfredo Estarada, also known as Alfredo Estrada Eugenio, also known as Alfredo Eugenio

- Estrada, also known as Alfredo Estrada, also known as Alfredo Erasto Estrada

- Eugenio, also know n as Gerardo Amezquita,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 254

- 1 USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 110

- 1 United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50755 Document: 00515347254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020No. 19

- 5075 5 c/w No. 19

- 50763

2 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfredo Estrada

- Eugenio appeals his within

- G uidelines sentence of 52 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Additionally, he appeals the revocation of his supervised release related to a prior conviction for illegal reentry. Estrada

- Eugenio argues that the enhancement of his sentence for his new illegal reentry offense pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the max imum sentence to 20 years of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as an element that must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyo nd

a reasona ble doubt. He concedes that his argument that a prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998) , but he seeks to preserve the argument for possibl e Supreme Court review. Estrada

- Eugenio’s argument is indeed foreclosed. United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

– 26 (5th Cir. 2007). E strada

- Eugenio has not raised any argument wit h respect to his revocation proceedings. Any such claim is thus deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brie f is DENIED, and the district court ’s judgment s are AFFIRMED.

* 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. Case: 19-50755 Document: 00515347254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
Before the First Division,

November 15, 1962

No. 67200.

protest 60/26351 (New York).

#### S. Berger Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion 'by

Wilson, J.

In acordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3117

___________

J. Malcolm Thompson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Larry R. Peterson; David B. Danbom; *

Yur-Bok Lee; Gerald Anderson; *

Thomas Isern; Harriette McCaul; Rick * Appeal from the United States

D. Johnson, all of whom are and/or were* District Court for the District

persons employed within the teaching * of North Dakota.

faculty and/or administration at North *

Dakota State University, being named * [UNPUBLISHED]

herein as having acted in both their *

individual and official capacities; North *

Dakota State University, a publicly *

supported institution of higher learning *

under the control of the North Dakota *

State Board of Higher Education, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 14, 1999

Filed: May 21, 1999 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________
-2-

PER CURIAM.

J. Malcolm Thompson, a nontenured state university professor, appeals the

district court's ruling dismissing Thompson's claims for violation of his procedural and

substantive due process rights based on the university's decision not to renew his oneyear teaching contract. Having reviewed the record and the materials submitted by the

parties, we see no error by the district court. We also conclude that an extended

discussion would serve no useful purpose. Believing the district court is correct, we

affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Kit Leong
LowName:
    Kit Leong
LowTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Alcoa Wenatchee Works

Total Fluoride Data Lbs. TF/Ton Al

Roof Vent

Line 1 Line 2 Line 5

T51 T51 P100 Comments

Mar-13 1.3425 1.1689 0.7916 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Average of 3 tests

Apr-13 1.3569 1.5824 0.7832 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Average of 3 tests

May-13 1.1872 1.6223 0.8182 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Average of 3 tests

Jun-13 1.5329 1.6546 0.8926 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Average of 3 tests

Jul-13 1.6489 1.6602 1.0267 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Average of 3 tests

Aug-13 1.6110 1.5251 0.9865 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Average of 3 tests

Average 1.4466 1.5356 0.8832 Lbs. TF/Ton Al

Reactor

Line 1 Line 2 Line 5

A398 A398 GTC Comments

Oct-12 0.0359 0.0151 0.0614 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Single Test

Jan-13 0.0271 0.0462 0.0614 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Single Test

May-13 0.0356 0.0195 0.1037 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Single Test

Jul-13 0.0244 0.0308 0.1237 Lbs. TF/Ton Al Single Test

Average 0.0307 0.0279 0.0875 Lbs. TF/Ton Al
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                                                  Exhibit 11.1

                                                   Micro Linear Corporation
                                        Statement Re Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                                         (Unaudited)
                                            (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                                   Three Months Ended
                                                                       March 31,
                                                              -----------------------------
<S>                                                              <C>              <C> 
                                                                 1997             1996
                                                              ------------    -------------

Net income.............................................            $2,204           $2,983
                                                              ============    =============

PRIMARY:
Weighted average common shares outstanding.............            11,995           12,428

Common equivalents attributable to options and warrants:            1,302            1,104

Total weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding.....................            13,297           13,532
                                                              ============    =============

Net income per share...................................          $   0.17         $   0.22
                                                              ============    =============
</TABLE>
* 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

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41590

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RICARDO CORONA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-199-ALL 

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ricardo Corona appeals the 37-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent

to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marihuana. Corona

argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred

by denying him a downward adjustment under the safety-valve

provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. 

The safety valve allows for sentencing below the statutory

mandatory minimum sentence when certain conditions are met. 

Because the district court applied the safety valve and sentenced
No. 05-41590

-2-

Corona below the five-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence

in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), we affirm the district court’s

judgment. 

AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT TRACEY SPENCER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5310 RJB/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. # 5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon. Karen

L. Strombom.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05310-RJB Document 8 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN TUBBS, JOSEPH DIBEE,

JOSEPHINE S. OVERAKER, JUSTIN

SOLONDZ, and BRIANA WATERS,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-5828FDB

ORDER DENYING UNITED

STATES’ MOTION FOR

DISCLOSURE OF PRESENTENCE

REPORTS AS PREMATURE

The Government, concluding pursuant to Ninth Circuit authority, that a defendant is entitled

to material in a probation file that bears on the credibility of a significant witness in a case – subject

to a protective order – moves for disclosure of presentence reports of six of Waters’ co-conspirators

who have pleaded guilty to charges in the District of Oregon: Nathan Bloch, Chelsea Gerlach, Daniel

McGowan, Stanislaw Meyerhoff, Suzanne Savoie, and Joyanna Zacher. The United States Two of

these co-conspirators have responded: Chelsea Gerlach and Daniel McGowan. 

Chelsea Gerlach objects to disclosure of certain paragraphs of the presentence report, to

disclosure of her date of birth and social security number, and to the psychological evaluation

attached to the presentence report, arguing that this information contains personal and private

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 240 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

information and does not constitute Brady material, and should not, therefore, be disclosed. 

Daniel McGowan responds that he has not been formally listed as a witness, that he has not

been served with a subpoena, nor has his counsel been advised that he will be subpoenaed to testify. 

Moreover, McGowan indicates that in exchange for his plea of guilty, he would describe his own

conduct, but would not identify any other person or persons involved in any criminal conduct in

which he engaged. Furthermore, McGowan indicates that he would not willingly appear and testify

and that he would risk a contempt citation instead. Thus, McGowan argues that the motion is

premature, and release of any part of his presentence report would be an unnecessary and

unwarranted violation of his privacy. 

Counsel for Defendant Waters has filed a response to Gerlach’s objections. Defendant

Waters notes that it is not clear that the Government is going to call Chelsea Gerlach as a witness. 

Waters states that she has no interest at this time in examining material to which Gerlach objects, but

asks that the Court release that material to which she has no objection. 

The Court concludes that the Government’s motion is premature and will deny it at this time

subject to renewal. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: The United States’ Motion for Disclosure of

Presentence Reports [Dkt. # 206] is DENIED as premature. 

DATED this 24th day of October, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 240 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 14,882.

#### UNITED STATES v. CRAIG.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 36.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1811.

Jurt—Peremptory Challenge.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Upon an indictment for manslaughter by killing one Hilliard, the prisoner was allowed the right of peremptory challenge.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2015

No. 04-14-00798-CR

IN RE Flanzo LaFonte TOWNES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Retired Chief Justice (not participating)

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on November 17, 2014, complaining 

of the trial court’s failure to rule on his post-conviction motion for DNA testing. On November 

26, 2014, this court denied the petition because relator had appointed counsel and is not entitled 

to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). On 

April 17, 2015, relator filed a letter, which we construe as a motion for rehearing, asking this

court to rule on his pro se petition for mandamus.

Having received from the trial court a copy of an order dated August 21, 2014, granting 

relator’s motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing, this court has determined that relator 

has obtained the relief requested in his mandamus petition. See Safety–Kleen Corp. v. Garcia,

945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding) (appropriate relief is to 

direct trial court to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time). No further action 

on relator’s mandamus petition is necessary or appropriate. Accordingly, the panel has 

considered relator’s motion for rehearing and it is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on May 12, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009CR0764, styled The State of Texas v. Flanzo LaFonte Townes, 

pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
# Official Journal C 244A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.244.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 244A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5423 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.244.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 244A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5423 August 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 244A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — fifth supplement to the 29th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 244A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — fifth supplement to the 29th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 10.325

                               BILL OF SALE

     RBF  Exploration  Co., a Nevada corporation ("Seller")  hereby  sells,
transfers,  assigns,  conveys and delivers to BTM  Capital  Corporation,  a
Delaware  corporation  ("Purchaser"), its successors and  assigns  forever,
free  and clear of all claims, liens or encumbrances, all of Seller's right
and  title  to, and interest in, the equipment and other items of  personal
property  listed in the "Owner Furnished" column on Schedule 1 hereto  (the
"Equipment"), along with any and all applicable vendor warranties;

     To  have and to Hold the same and each and all thereof unto Purchaser,
its  successors and assigns forever, to its and their own use  and  benefit
forever.

     Seller  does  hereby bind itself, and its successors and  assigns,  to
warrant and forever defend title to the Equipment, unto Purchaser, and  its
successors  and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully  claiming
or  to  claim  the  same  or  any  part thereof.   SELLER  MAKES  NO  OTHER
WARRANTIES,  EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES ANY WARRANTY  OF
FITNESS  FOR  PURCHASER'S PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  SELLER  DISCLAIMS  ALL  ORAL
WARRANTIES.

     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller has executed this Bill of Sale as  of  the
____ day of February, 2000.

                                   RBF EXPLORATION CO.



                                   By:_________________________
                                   Name:__________________
                                   Title:_________________