alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 We note t hat, pursuant to OCGA § 44-7-56, appeals from dispossessory jud gment s must be

filed wi thin seven da

ys, r ather tha n the usual 3 0 days. Thi s shortened deadlinedid not apply here, be cause the dispossessory claim was re solved earlier in the proceedings. See America Net, Inc. v. U. S. Cover, Inc. , 243 Ga. App 204 (1) (53 2 SE2d 756 ) (2000). 

## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia
ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A14D0475 . ALLISON ZAREM v. SOUTHCOAST PROPERTIES, LLC. Allison Z are m h as filed a

n application for disc retionar y appe al from

a state court de cision. T

he partie s’ litiga

tion began a s a disposses sory pr oceedingi n magis trate court, and t he case was transferred to state court when Zar em raised cou nt erc lai ms that exceede d the m agistrate court’ s jurisdi ctional lim it. Under these circum stances, the state court’ s judgm ent is subj ect to dire ct appeal
. Where litig ation be gins in m agistrate court and r

eaches th e state c ourt by mean s of ade novo appe al, a pa rty m ust file a n application for discretionary appeal to obtain appe llate reviewbefore t his Court. See OC GA § 5-6- 35 (a) (11 ). But th is provision applies, by

its term s, only

where t he state cour

t exercis es de novo review of the m agistrate

court’ s decis ion. Her

e, the c ase was transfer

red from magis trate cou rt t o st ate c our t, so OCGA § 5-6 -35 (a) ( 11) doe s no t ap ply. We will gra

nt an other

wise tim ely a pplication f

or discre tionary

appeal if the lower court’s order

is subjec t to direct

appeal. 1 See O CGA § 5-6 -35 (j). A cco rdi ngl y, this applicati on is hereb y GRANTED, and Zarem sha ll have ten

days f rom t he date of t his order to file a not

ice of app eal with the trial court. I f she has already filed a notice of appeal

in the trial court, she need not file a se cond notice . The c lerk of the trial court is D IRECT ED to inc lude a copy of this order in the record transmitted to August 27, 2014the Court o f Appeal s. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify t hat the abo ve is a true extract from the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my sig natu re and the seal of said co urt hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 08/27/2014
----

Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-475/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 178/05)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and M. Tassopoulou, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37)

Operative part of the judgement

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARTIN I. FRY, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, et al. : NO. 02-02780

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9th day of October, 2002, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a settlement

conference in the above captioned matter, will be conducted before the undersigned on

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 3041, United States Courthouse, 601

Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The senior attorney in charge of the matter for each of the parties, AND THE PARTIES

THEMSELVES, or if a corporation, an official of the corporation with settlement authority are

required to attend the conference in person. If a party is more than one hundred miles from

Philadelphia and prior permission is given by the court, the party may participate by telephone. 

The parties and counsel must be prepared to discuss settlement or other disposition of the matter.

Counsel are directed to fax confidential position papers not longer than 2 pages directly

to Chambers (fax. no. 215-580-2163) not later than 2 business days prior to the date of the

conference. The position paper should address the party’s settlement position, as well as any

other issue that counsel believes will be of assistance to the Court in helping the parties resolve

this matter. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE SHARED WITH OPPOSING

COUNSEL NOR FILED OF RECORD. THIS IS FOR JUDGE HART'S EYES ONLY.

 

 DEBORAH FETTERS

DEPUTY CLERK TO HON. JACOB P. HART

 

 Copies faxed to: Copies mailed to:

 A. Jarrett, Esq.; J. James, Esq.; J. Santarone, Jr., Esq.

Case 2:02-cv-02780-MK Document 14 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2019004EN.01002301.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of an L-shaped groove)

(Case T-447/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing an L-shaped groove - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 - Application of the law ratione temporis - Shape of the goods - Nature of the sign - Account taken of material relevant to identifying the essential characteristics of the sign - General interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2019/C 4/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yokohama Rubber and Pirelli Tyre.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014 5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014 5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA;

| 3. | Orders Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

__________________________________________

:

LARRY STURGIS, : CIVIL ACTION 

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. : No. 01-060

: 

BENJAMIN VARNER, et al., : 

:

Respondents. :

__________________________________________:

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4th day of April 2014, upon consideration of Petitioner, Larry

Sturgis’, Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)

(Doc. No. 63), the Response filed by Respondents and Petitioner’s Traverse, it is hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Robert F. Kelly 

ROBERT F. KELLY

SENIOR JUDGE 

Case 2:01-cv-00060-RK Document 70 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 1
# C570_Certified Reinsurers

Printed: &D

# Legend
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000Draft&"Arial,Regular"&K000000 &"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-06	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 04-20-17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAROLIN BRELAND

02-4401

District Court Docket Number

vs.

ATC VANCOM

Notice of Appeal Filed 12/11/02

Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s)

Filing Fee:

 Notice of Appeal Paid X Not Paid Seaman

 Docket Fee Paid X Not Paid USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

 Private Attorney

 Defender Association or Federal Public Defender

 Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

 X Motion Granted

 Motion Denied

 Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

 Granted

 Denied

 Pending

 Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

 

 Prepared by : 

Patricia Horning 12/11/02

Deputy Clerk Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm

Case 2:02-cv-04401-TON Document 21 Filed 12/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 174-8 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 174-8 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 174-8 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 194-3 Filed 01/27/2004 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 194-3 Filed 01/27/2004 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 194-3 Filed 01/27/2004 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 194-3 Filed 01/27/2004 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 194-3 Filed 01/27/2004 Page 5 of 5
### SERVE D JUN E17,201 1 ^ •, ..v.virNl'^ ^ • lLru:li;-ulUi 1

; L NK i '^

^ {• • 3 0

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH EMATTE RO F EMPIR EFLIGH T ACADEM Y FA A DOCKE T No . [T O B EASSIGNED ] FDM S No . FAA-2011-029 0 (Civil Penalt

y Case ) 

### ORDE RGRANTIN GMOTION S FO REXTENSION S O FTIM E Responden t

Empir e Fligh t

Academ y ("Respondent" ) file daMotio n for Partia l Summar y Judgmen t

and , thre e day s later , aMotion for Decision . Complainant , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant " o r "agency" ) move dfor

a n extensio n o f tim e o f 1 4 days , o r

unti l Jun e 24 , 2011 , t o fil e a n answe r t o Respondent' s Motion for Partia l Summar y Judgment . I t the n move dfor

a n extensio n o f

tim e o f 1 1 days , o r

unti l Jun e 24 , 2011 , t o fil e a

n answe r t o Respondent' s Motio n fo r Decision . Th e agenc y represent s tha t

Responden t

ha s n o objectio n i n eithe r instanc e t o th e requeste dextension . Complainant' s motion s ar e granted. ' Th e dat e b y whic hComplainan t i s require d t o fil e answer s t o Respondent' s Motion for Partia l Summar y Judgmen t an dRespondent' s Motion for

Decisio n i s i n bothinstance s hereb y extende dt o Jun e 24 , 2011 .

Thi s matte r wa s reassignedt

o the undersignedb

y Orde r o f the Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e date

d Jun e 10,2011 .S O ORDERED . 

# c

Attachmen t

~ Servic e Lis t Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e Law Judg eFDMS No . FAA-2011-029 0 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA Li

& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y (VI A FIRST-CLAS S MAIL , WIT H COURTES Y COP Y B Y FAX ) Gregory S . Winton , Respondent' s Counse l Th e Aviatio n Law Firm On e Researc hCourt , Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 TEL : 301-294-855 0 FAX : 301-294-252 5 Zachary M . Berman , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , AEA- 7 Eastern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo m56 1 Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e tli e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S . W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Was l ington, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk . AGC-^30 . - 2 -
----

Call for proposals for modal shift, catalyst and common learning actions under the Marco Polo Programme (Council and Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 of 22 July 2003, OJ L 196 of 2.8.2003, p. 1)

(2006/C 175/07)

The European Commission is hereby launching a call for proposals for the selection procedure 2006 under the Marco Polo programme. The call is closing on 11.10.2006.

Information on the modalities of the call and guidance to proposers on how to submit projects, is available at the following Website:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/guide_proposers/index_en.htm

The helpdesk of the Marco Polo Programme can be reached via e-mail: tren-marco-polo@ec.europa.eu and fax: (32-2) 296 37 65.

----
# C_2017112EN.01001402.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/14

---

Appeal brought on 22 September 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2016 in Case T-567/15: Monster Energy v EUIPO — MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE (REPRESENTATION OF A BLACK SQUARE WITH FOUR WHITE LINES)

(Case C-502/16 P)

(2017/C 112/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 16 February 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Thomas M. Belk, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Belk, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: June 14, 2007/s/ Thomas M. Belk
# C_2017283EN.01004301.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)

(Case T-389/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONTORSI F. & F. - Earlier national word mark Casa Montorsi - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Agreement for coexistence of the marks - Scope - Article 53(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Agricola italiana alimentare SpA (AIA) (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Casa Montorsi Srl (Vignola, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 1239/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Casa Montorsi and AIA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agricola italiana alimentare (AIA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agricola italiana alimentare (AIA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ :

FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) : MDL DOCKET NO. 1203

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION :

 :

PEGGY MARTINEZ, ET AL. :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20135

:

AMERICAN HOME PRODS. CORP., ET AL. :

 :

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 

AND NOW, on this 27th day of May, 2008, upon

consideration of the motion of Sally M. Barquet and Shelley

Barquet-Corredor to substitute, it is hereby ORDERED that Sally

M. Barquet and Shelley Barquet-Corredor, as heirs to the Estate

of Betty Barquet, are substituted for the named plaintiff in this

action.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III 

C.J.

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 37 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60338

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRUCE G. CARVER, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:99-CR-70-1

-------------------- January 31, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Bruce Carver appeals his sentence following a jury conviction

for obtaining money by fraud under a federal program, making false

writings in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of

Education, and conspiracy to commit these offenses. He argues that

the district court erred as follows: (1) in awardi ng him a twolevel sentence enhancement bas ed on his supervisory role in the2

offense; (2) in awarding him a two-level sentence enhancement for

abuse of a position of trust; and (3) in refusing to depart

downward more than three levels from the appl icable Sentencing

Guidelines.

"A sentence will be upheld unless it was imposed in violation

of law, was an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines,

or is outside the range of the applicable sentencing guidel ine."

United States v. Ocana

, 204 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

531 U.S. 880 (2000). A district court's finding that a defendant

is an organizer or leader pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 is a factual

finding reviewed for clear error, as is a finding pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 that the defendant abused a position of trust.

United States v. Dadi

, 235 F.3d 945, 951 (5th Cir. 2000) (U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1), cert. denied

, 121 S. Ct . 2230 (2001); U nited States v.

Brown

, 7 F. 3d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir. 1993) (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3). We

hold that the district court did not clearly err in enhancing

Carver’s sentence a total of four levels based on its findings that

he played a supervisory role in the offense and that, as both a

police officer and inmate instructor, he abuse d a position of

public trust when he engaged in the criminal activity at issue.

The district court’s decision as to the extent of a downward

departure is within its near complete discretion. See Unit e d

States v. Cooper,

__ F.3d__ (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2001, No. 00-30208)

2001 WL 1504530, at *13. The extent of departure is unreviewable3

unless it is otherwise in violation of federal statutory or

constitutional law, neither of which Carver argues is applicable.

United States v. Alvarez

, 51 F.3d 36, 41 (5th Cir. 1995). We

therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its near

complete discretion in refusing any further downward departure.

AFFIRMED.