alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

November 3, 1955

No. 59409.

protests 262502-K, etc. (Louisville).

#### United Sales Agency et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
PO
      Box
      84013


Columbus
      GA 31908-4013


Tel.
      800.784.5566









March
      6,
      2006




ABN
      AMRO
      Mortgage Capital Markets Group


Attn:
      Doniece Walton, Compliance Manager


135
      S.
      LaSalle Street


Suite
      1625


Chicago,
      IL 60603




Re:
      Annual Statement of Compliance for the Servicing Agreements by GreenPoint
      Mortgage Funding, Inc., as Servicer




Ladies
      and Gentlemen:




Pursuant
      to the Servicing Agreement with respect to the above-referenced offering, the
      undersigned officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (as "Servicer") hereby
      certifies as to the following
      (capitalized terms have the meanings used in the Servicing
      Agreement):




1.  A
      review
      of the activities of the Servicer and its performance under the Servicing
      Agreement during
      the preceding fiscal year since the inception of the trust has been made under
      the direct supervision
      of the undersigned officer; and




2.  To
      the
      best knowledge of the undersigned officer, based on such review, the Servicer
      has fulfilled
      all of its material obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout the
      applicable period,
      and there has been no known default in the fulfillment of the Servicer's
      material obligations throughout
      such period, except as follows:




During
      the
      year, certain custodial bank account reconciliations were not prepared and reviewed
      on a timely basis. In addition, there are certain custodial bank accounts that
      have reconciling
      items that have not been resolved with 90 calendar days of their original
      identification. For
      the
      month ended December 31, 2005, all custodial bank reconciliations had been
      completed and reviewed on a timely basis.




Very
      truly
      yours,




GREENPOINT
      MORTGAGE


FUNDING, INC., as Servicer




By:
      /s/ Michael De
      Francesco


Name;
      Michael De
      Francesco


Title:
      Senior Vice
      President


Loan
      Administration




Aviso
      Importante Para Las Personas Habla Espanol


Si
      usted no entiendo el contenido de esta carta por favor obtenga una traduccion
      immediamente




2300
      Brookstone Centre Pkwy Columbus
      GA 31904


www.greenpointservice.com
# C_2015155EN.01003501.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/35

---

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

(Case T-129/15)

(2015/C 155/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WAVE 2 PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 117

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1857/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently






  — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2015089EN.01003501.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/35

---

Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council

(Case T-24/15)

(2015/C 089/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

1

2

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of fundamental right to property.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, including the right to effective judicial protection. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd as designated by the Council, as this company no longer exists in Jersey and does not exist in Iran; and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested acts. Finally, by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

---

(1)  OJ L 325, p. 19.

1

(2)  OJ L 325, p. 3.

2

---
No. 55100.

#### Barotz Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 35458-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, A. Daniel Moran, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of World Gaming plc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

   a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
      being prepared;

   b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

   c. disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered
      by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
      to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

   a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
      affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial information; and

   b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting.

Date: April 4, 2004                 /s/ A. Daniel Moran
                                    -----------------------------
                                    A. Daniel Moran
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    (principal executive officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2020 Decided: March 3, 2020

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 

motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2018) and the First Step 

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). We may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has 

resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the 

claims Robinson raised in his motion for sentence reduction. Robinson requested that the 

district court reduce his sentences for trafficking in cocaine base, pursuant to Section 404 

of the First Step Act, and vacate his § 924(c) convictions, in light of Section 403’s 

amendments to that statute. The district court denied Robinson’s request in part, finding 

that Section 403 of the First Step Act is non-retroactive and therefore affords Robinson no 

relief regarding his § 924(c) convictions. The district court, however, did not address 

Robinson’s request for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Accordingly, we 

conclude that the order Robinson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
Before the Third Division,

November 13, 1952

No. 56932.

#### International Expediters, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 128615-K/1082, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisements of the merchandise and the liquidations of the entries were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement and liquidation in *The Gruen Watch Company*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the cited authority the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. It was further held that the legal liquidations should be had which would form the basis for protests in which, should they so desire, the importers may litigate any questions presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 12, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-126 Lower Tribunal No. 17-2683

________________ 

### Stephen Simon , Appellant,
vs. 

### Joseph Halegua , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. Stephen Simon, in proper person. Conroy Simberg, and Hinda Klein, Dale Friedman, and Samuel B. Spinner (Hollywood), for appellee. Before LOGUE, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Florida Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (the Florida Supreme Court has “explained that under the doctrine of res judicata: A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action” (emphasis in original)).
No. 54522.

#### American Leather Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 135026-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District 1

Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report

and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United

States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-3439

___________

Jack Wann, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Shirley S. Chater, * Western District of Arkansas

Commissioner, Social Security *

Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 1996

 Filed: April 9, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jack Wann appeals from a final order of the District Court for the 1

Western District of Arkansas, awarding attorneys fees under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), at a rate less than

requested. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 

After the district court remanded his social security case to the

Commissioner for further proceedings, Wann applied for attorneys fees under

EAJA. Wann sought $4,685.96, based in part on approximately 30.5 hours of

attorney time at a rate of $124.29 per
-2-

hour (accounting for cost-of-living increases). The Commissioner opposed

the fee request, arguing Wann was entitled to no more that $116.99 per

hour, set as a reasonable rate by this court in Stockton v. Shalala, 36

F.3d 49, 50 (8th Cir. 1994). 

The district court concluded the reasonable hourly rate including the

appropriate cost-of-living increases in the district was $116.99 per hour,

and the attorney's experience in social security cases did not warrant an

additional fee enhancement. The district court awarded a total of

$4,373.46. 

On appeal, Wann argues the district court abused its discretion in

arbitrarily reducing the cost-of-living adjustment for the hourly rate for

EAJA compensation, without regard to the actual rate established through

the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Commissioner argues Wann did not

present proper proof of the cost-of-living increases according to the

established formula for using the CPI.

We review a district court's award of EAJA fees for abuse of

discretion. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988). We agree with the

Commissioner that Wann did not present proper proof of the correct cost-ofliving increases to justify his requested hourly rate. Moreover, we have

carefully reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in determining the appropriate hourly rate in this case.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00593

- CV

Alvin M. BURNS , I.M. Burns, Dimmit County, Hakim Dermish,

Robert L. Ramirez and Edward J. Dryden,

Appellants

v.

ROSETTA RESOURCES, LTD. , a/k/a Rosetta Resources, Inc., Eusebio Cantu Torres,

Eusebio Torres, Jr. , Gladiator Energy Services, LLC,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 07

- 11738

- DCV

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , A ND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED as to

appellant Hakim Dermish. Costs of the appeal will be assessed upon final disposition of this

appeal.

SIGNED January 11, 2017.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 76754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7883-020]


Powerhouse Systems, Inc.; Notice of Technical Conference

    On Wednesday, November 15, 2023, Commission staff will hold a 
technical conference to provide clarification to Powerhouse Systems, 
Inc (Powerhouse) regarding the Exhibit F Supporting Design Report 
(SDR), for the Weston Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 7883.
    The conference will be held via teleconference beginning at 10:30 
a.m. eastern standard time. Discussion topics for the technical 
conference include: (1) the information provided in the Powerhouse's 
Exhibit F SDR filed on October 2, 2023; and (2) information required to 
provide an updated SDR that meets Commission regulations.
    All local, State, and Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, and other 
interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no 
transcript of the conference, but a summary of the meeting will be 
prepared for the project record. If you are interested in participating 
in the meeting you must contact John Baummer at (202) 502-6837 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#056f6a6d6b2b6764706868607745636077662b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72181d1a1c5c1013071f1f170032141700115c151d04">[email protected]</span></a> by November 10, 2023 to receive specific 
instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: November 1, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24589 Filed 11-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00076-CR

JULIO TORRES PALOMO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 28777

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Court reporter Becky Wheeler recorded the trial proceedings in appellate cause number 06-

14-00076-CR, styled Julio Torres Palomo v. The State of Texas, trial court cause number 28777, 

on appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas. On January 27, 2015, 

this Court issued an order to the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 

9.10(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, to seal the electronically filed reporter’s record 

in this case. By letter of even date, this Court notified Wheeler of the sealing order, provided her 

a copy of said order, and advised her that, although Rule 9.10 forbids the filing of documents 

containing sensitive data, we were not requesting redaction of the record at that time. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.10(f). We further advised Wheeler that, should the need arise in the future, we would, at 

that time, ask her to redact the reporter’s record. 

By letter dated November 13, 2015, this Court notified Wheeler that Palomo had requested 

a copy of the reporter’s record in this matter. We further advised Wheeler that, as Palomo is 

unquestionably entitled to a copy of the record, Wheeler would need to submit a redacted version 

of the record to this Court so that we, in turn, could fulfill Palomo’s request. Included as enclosures 

in the November 13 letter for Wheeler’s use in preparing the redacted record in this matter were 

(1) our letter of January 27, 2015, advising Wheeler of our order sealing the record in this case; 

(2) our January 27, 2015, sealing order; and (3) a copy of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ 

recent order adopting amendments to Rule 9.10. We requested that Wheeler file the redacted 

record with this Court on or before December 4, 2015. Wheeler failed to respond to our letter and 

failed to provide the redacted record. Follow-up attempts to contact Wheeler by email were 
3

unsuccessful, until telephone contact was made with her on December 9, 2015. At that time, 

Wheeler indicated that she would be able to file the redacted record with this Court within twentyone days. Because Palomo’s request for a copy of the record and his payment for same were 

received over thirty days ago, the redacted record should be received by this Court, at the very 

latest, within fifteen days of the date of this order. 

Accordingly, we order Wheeler to provide the redacted record to this Court no later than 

the close of business on Wednesday, December 30, 2015. If the redacted reporter’s record is not 

received by December 30, we warn Wheeler that we may begin contempt proceedings and order 

her to demonstrate why she should not be held in contempt of this Court for failing to obey its 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: December 15, 2015