alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45213

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

LYNNETT ANN RIFE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 416

Filed: April 6, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Lynnett Ann Rife was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine , Idaho C ode § 37

-
2732(c)(1) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period

of confinement of two years

, and placed her on probation

. Rife appeals, contending that her

sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Rife ’s judgme nt of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Before the Third Division,

May 27, 1963

No. 67770.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United States,

protest 62/699 (San Diego).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe merchandise consists of decorated compotes, bowls, etc., tbe same as those tbe subject of Abstracts 60938 and 63262, tbe claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IPAC Operational Metrics for May 2017

‘Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] ‘Sof Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] __ 9 of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 10,610,130,130,612| 39.4355 33.013] 10.98%|
[Buv/Sen 55,030,876,415 0.2 303,923 7.735
[Benefits (RITS) 5,387,081,226| 0.0655 422] 036%
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 92,913,484] 0.0055 1097] 0.93%
[Zero Dollar | 0.0055 10.005
[Grand Total- May 2017, 10,671,251,001,738 100.005 700.005
[Grand Total April 2017, 9,141,994,830,743| 100.0% 100.0%

[April to May Change 1,529,256,170,996|
[Percentage Change 16.7285
[Grand Total- May 2016 16,154,064,247,527
[May 2016 to May 2017 Change 75,482,813,245,790|

[Percentage Change

33.9%
# C_2015118EN.01003401.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/34

---

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v OHIM (Brauwelt)

(Case T-56/15)

(2015/C 118/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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 word mark ‘Brauwelt’– Application No 1 2 0 38  551

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1121/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 80 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                          for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-62 is 
further amended by striking ``November 17, 1999'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting ``November 18, 1999''. Public Law 106-46 is amended by 
striking ``November 17, 1999'' and inserting ``November 18, 1999''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
ran

vrh

1000 NAME: James M. Salisbury

2000 E-MAIL: Salisbjm@Wilberbank.com

3000 TITLE: Vice President and Cashier 053
5000 ORG TYPE: Financial Institution & Trade Association

6000 PHONE: 607 433 4154

7000 FAX: 607432 6808

8000 COMMENTS: The rate differential of 25 basis points between the
TT&L Note Option and the Fed funds rate has been acceptable. To increase
the cost will make this instrument less usable because the only investment
to be made short term is fed funds. TT&L note balances for a guaranteed
term should enable an investment to be made with a similiar term.
Case No. 14,980.

#### UNITED STATES v. DOMAN.

[See Case No. 14,983.]
# C_2021206EN.01000502.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Merck KGaA v European Commission, Generics (UK) Ltd

(Case C-614/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) - Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)

(2021/C 206/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Merck KGaA (represented by: B. Bär-Bouyssière and S. Smith, Solicitors, and by R. Kreisberger QC, and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Vecchi, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, and by G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel), Generics (UK) Ltd

Intervener in support of the defendents: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery, and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Merck KGaA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Merck KGaA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---
# October 2023
No. 66235.

#### Karl Schroff & Assoc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25409-10257 and 59/15587-10784 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 72, C.A.D. 676), the merchandise was held dutiable, as claimed, at the applicable rates in effect on the respective dates of importation under the pertinent trade agreements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHARLENE M. ALBRIGHT, et al.

v.

KELLOGG COMPANY

04-CV-0632

NOTICE OF STIPULATED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)( 1 )(ii), ^ par5es~rIeTeE>3rgTlpitlait; ur

Plaintiffs' dismissal of their Complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

(] yvu,<^c

Jasop Weinstock, Esquire

Ft/Plaintiffs

Thomas J. Bender, Esquire

For Defendant Kellogg Company

Dated: March 1% ,2005

Case 2:04-cv-00632-CRW Document 6 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulated

Voluntary Dismissal was caused to be served electronically upon:

Jason Weinstock, Esquire

Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.

800 North Second Street

Harrisburg, PA 17102

Frank J. Conley

Date: April 4, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00632-CRW Document 6 Filed 04/04/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WILSON : 02-3878

RETES : 02-3888

LUX, et al. : 02-3904

JACKSON, et al. : 02-3921

GUZZETTA, et al. : 02-3960

FAGAN, et al. : 02-3965

GREEN : 02-3989

NELSON, et al. : 02-4120

ASHTON, et al. : 02-4155

MCNALLY, et al : 02-4159

EVERETT, et al. : 02-4191

CASTELAZ, et al. : 02-4192

PERRY : 02-4249

NAPIER, et al. : 02-4256

POWERS, et al. : 02-4260

SANTOS, et al. : 02-4272

PRICE : 02-4299

SHULDA : 02-4307

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04260-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Herbert J. Hutton, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04260-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

October 19, 1960

No. 64754.

#### Distilled Liquors Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 110228-K, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. R. *C. Williams*& *Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 54527.

#### Winton Watch Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 156299-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2017293EN.01000901.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-193/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) - Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health - Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security - Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society - Present and genuine threat - Concept - Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences))

(2017/C 293/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E

Applicant:

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person is imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future, does not exclude that his conduct represents, as the case may be, a present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of the society of the host Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Servicemembers� andveterans� group life insurance programs [electronic resource].**
 
2009| 2017| 2023
 
SuDocNumber: VA 1.46/2:
ItemNumber: 0983 (online)
CGPsystem Number: 000828566 
 
October 29, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

URSULA and HENRY MOHR :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4117

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04117-CN Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
# Map            Romania.
1Pursuant 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.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 02-11009

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

NELSON TOMAS ZAMBRANO

Petitioner - Appellant

 v.

L. E. FLEMING, Warden, Federal Medical Center – Fort Worth 

Respondent - Appellee

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Forth Worth Division

(4:02-CV-672-A)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Nelson Tomas Zambrano, federal prisoner # 28146-004, appeals the district court’s

judgement construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and

dismissing it. Zambrano argues that the district court erred in construing his petition as a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of

his detention. Zambrano has not shown that he is entitled to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
-2-

based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as he has not shown that any of his claims rely on

a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d

893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Zambrano is challenging the validity of his underlying

conviction, the district court correctly construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See

Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Zambrano acknowledges that he filed a

previous 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction. He has not obtained authorization

from the appropriate court of appeals for filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Zambrano’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-220-CV

MELANY SMITH

APPELLANT

V.

NORTHWEST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEES

CITY OF ROANOKE, AND DENTON COUNTY

----------

FROM THE 367 DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY th

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

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

On May 29, 2008, and June 12, 2008, we notified appellant, in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this
2... Appellant’s notice of appeal was entitled “Defendant’s Notice of

Appeal and Affidavit of Inability to File Appeal Bond.” The Denton County

District Clerk timely filed a contest to the affidavit of inability to pay and, on

June 12, 2008, the trial court sustained the district clerk’s contest. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 20.1. Nothing indicates that appellant sought leave to amend her

affidavit and she has not appealed this order. See In re J.W., 52 S.W.3d 730,

733 (Tex. 2001) (holding that, where appellants moved to amend or

supplement their affidavits of indigence at the contest hearing, “the court of

appeals should have directed the trial court to allow [appellants] a reasonable

opportunity to amend their affidavits and to reconsider the contests based upon

any additional information”).

3... See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007)

(listing fees in courts of appeals).

2

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b). 2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007 ,

3

we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J. 

DELIVERED: July 10, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WYLIE : 02-3872

JACOBS, et al. : 02-3931

MORRIS : 02-3968

VARGAS, et al. : 02-4172

WALSH, et al. : 02-4181

WASLH, et al. : 02-4183

BRUNO : 02-4232

BURNETT, et al. : 02-4236

ANCTIL : 02-4285

FISHER, et al. : 02-4293

ASHCRAFT : 02-4297

CHARBONEAU : 02-4308

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

Case 2:02-cv-04232-LDD Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Legrome D. Davis, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04232-LDD Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 2 of 2