alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM E. KEPLER, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

14 USCMA 135, 33 CMR 347

No. 16,860

July 12, 1963

*Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Herrod*and *Captain Ronald L. Gainer*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*and *First Lieutenant John C. Cortesio, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

*136Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Among other things, the accused was found guilty of wrongful appropriation of a five-ton wrecker, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC §921. Our examination of the record discloses a failure to establish by evidence other than accused’s voluntary pretrial statement that the motor vehicle in question was probably wrongfully appropriated by someone. Absent such proof, the prosecution for this offense must fail. United States v Hirt, 13 USCMA 420, 32 CMR 420; United States v Smith, 13 USCMA 105, 32 CMR 105; United States v Young, 12 USCMA 211, 30 CMR 211.

The findings of guilty of Charge II and its specification are set aside, and Charge II is ordered dismissed. The sentence is set aside, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. The board of review may reassess the penalty on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.

Judge Kilday concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I would affirm the findings of guilty. See my dissent in United States v Hirt, 13 USCMA 420, 32 CMR 420.
# C_2007195EN.01001501.xml

| 23.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/15

---

Publication, pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, concerning a cancellation application

(2007/C 195/08)

This publication confers the right to object the cancellation application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objections must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

1

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Cancellation request according to Article 12(2)

‘GEMMINGER MINERALQUELLE’

EC No: DE/PDO/017/0817/23.7.2003

ImagePGIImagePDO

1.   Registered name proposed for cancellation:

‘Gemminger Mineralquelle’

2.   Member State or Third Country:

Germany

3.   Type of product:

Class 2.2: Natural mineral waters and spring waters

4.   Person or body making request for cancellation:

| Name: | Wüteria Schlossbrunnen |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | D-75050 Gemmingen |

Name:

Wüteria Schlossbrunnen

Address:

D-75050 Gemmingen

Nature of legitimate interest in making the request:

The applicant is the only producer of the protected name.

5.   Reasons for Cancellation:

The applicant has decided that it no longer wants to use the name as a protected designation of origin and therefore no longer wants to pay the control costs.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

---
No. 52634.

protest 961625-G (Los Angeles).

#### Parrott & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the wooden boxes containing the canned oranges are the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Nozaki Brothers, Inc.*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 262, C. D. 61). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and following the decision cited, the claim for free entry of the wooden boxes in question was sustained.
* 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

April 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40996

Summary Calendar

DAVID CARPENTER,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

versus

TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellant,

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CV-124

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding

Carpenter front-pay damages, even though the court declined to

award back-pay damages because of Carpenter’s failure to mitigate

those back-pay damages. See Giles v. General Electric Co., 245

F.3d 489, 490 (5th Cir. 2001); DeLoach v. Delchamps, Inc., 897 F.2d

815, 822-33 (5th Cir. 1990). And, given its broad equitable powers

in USERRA cases, 38 U.S.C. § 4323(e); Coffy v. Republic Steel
No. 06-40996

-2-

Corp., 447 U.S. 191, 196 (1980), the district did not abuse its

discretion in awarding one year’s salary without considering

Carpenter’s prospective $7-per-hour future income. Consequently,

the court did not err in awarding Carpenter attorneys’ fees. 38

U.S.C. § 4323(h)(2); Buckhannon v. Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West

Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001).

In his brief, Carpenter attempts to cross-appeal the district

court’s upholding the jury’s finding of no damages, but Carpenter

never filed a notice of appeal, hence we cannot entertain his

argument. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(3); see, e.g., Positive Black Talk,

Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 365 n.5 (5th Cir.

2004).

AFFIRMED.
First Department,

November, 1995

(November 2, 1995)

#### Beatrice Darnovsky, Appellant, v Unusual Restaurant, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 147]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about February 6, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ "special use” of the sidewalk created a duty on their part to keep the sidewalk area adjacent to the outdoor cafe railing unobstructed, since the "special use” doctrine does not apply in this case. The allegedly "defective condition”, a dog tied to a barrier while its owner was allegedly patronizing defendant restaurant’s establishment, was on a section of the sidewalk on which plaintiff was walking that was outside of the area on which the restaurant was situated *(compare, Curtis v City of New York,*179 AD2d 432, *lv denied*80 NY2d 753). There is no claim that "the de facto boundaries of defendants’ sidewalk cafe extended beyond the guardrail” *(MacLeod v Pete's Tavern*218 AD2d 551, 552). Moreover, the doctrine normally is applied in situations where injury is caused by an allegedly defective condition *in the sidewalk itself (Karr v City of New York,*161 AD2d 449 [metal plate in sidewalk]; *Schechtman v Lappin,*161 AD2d 118 [oil filler cap in sidewalk and abutting hole in concrete]; *Giaccotto v New York City Tr. Auth.,*150 Misc 2d 164, *revd on other grounds*184 AD2d 355 [unsecured grating in sidewalk]; *see also, Gage v City of New York,*203 AD2d 118 [terrazzo tile installed on sidewalk]), whereas here, plaintiff allegedly tripped over the dog. Plaintiff offers no authority for her contention that the special use doctrine applies where a patron’s animal obstructs a pedestrian’s path on a section of the public sidewalk.

*152We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



MARKETWATCH, INC.



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of MarketWatch, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2004 (the Report), I, Lawrence S. Kramer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated therein.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: November 12, 2004



|    |  |                                            
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Lawrence S. Kramer                     
|    |  | Lawrence S. Kramer, Chief Executive Officer
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 51080

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Edwin Yovani Arias**

**- Quintanilla,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 531

- 1

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Ed w in Yovani Arias

- Quintanilla was convicted and sentence d for illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)( 1 ) . He now argues for the first time that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Arias

- Quintanilla
has nonetheless filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and a
letter brief explaining that he raises the issue to preserve it and correctly

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Cou rt of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 17, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-51080 Document: 00516321653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2022No. 21

- 51080

2 conceding his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 , 226 (1998). See , e.g. , United Sta tes v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

– 54 (5th Cir. 2019). S ummary disposition is therefore appropriate

. S ee Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. As such, we **GRANT** Arias

- Quintanilla’s unopposed motion and
**AFFIRM** the district court’s judgment. Case: 21-51080 Document: 00516321653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2022
No. 59556.

protests 255696-K (B) and 256395-K (B) (New York).

#### S. E. Laszlo *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP07-34-000] 

Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Southwest Gas Storage Company filed a cost and revenue study to comply with the Commission's Order Setting Complaint for Hearing, issued on December 21, 2006, in Docket No. RP07-34-000 (117 FERC ¶ 61,318 (2006)). 

                    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.                           ( print page 11016)    

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 14, 2007.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-4402 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

TINA LOCKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE OF REGINA LOCKE, DECEASED,

Petitioner

v.

FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER, JEFFREY THORLEY, M.D., MALA KAILASAM, M.D., WILLOWCREST REHAB, ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER, MANMEET SINGH, M.D., JEANES HOSPITAL,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 338 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of March, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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

27

28

[Proposed] Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ALAMAR CYRIL HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS L. CAREY et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:04-cv-1923 RRB PAN P

ORDER

Defendants’ Second Request for an Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint was considered by the Court, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants have to and including June 23, 2006 to

file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

DATED: June 13, 2006.

/hous1923.ext2

Case 2:04-cv-01923-GEB -EFB Document 31 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 24, 2021

No. 04-21-00268-CR

Sean Michael EARL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR4829W

The Honorable Jennifer Pena, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 On July 19, 2021, appellant filed a motion to recalculate the due date for filing 

appellant’s brief, stating the reporters’ record on file in this court was not yet complete. On 

August 20, 2021, the final outstanding volume of the reporter’s record was filed in this court.

Accordingly, appellant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Appellant’s brief is due thirty (30) 

days from the date the final volume of the reporter’s record was filed—on or before September 

20, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 18-2241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

MANUEL VEGA-MONSERRATE,

Defendant-Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on December 5, 2022, is 

amended as follows:

On page 2, line 4, "foregoing" is replaced with "following"
April 5, 1946

No. 51004.

C. D. 978.

#### Protests 968101-G/11482, etc., of Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
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
27

Action SignS for MentAl HeAltH

• Feeling very sad or withdrawn (2 weeks or more)

• Seriously trying to harm or kill yourself, or making plans to do so

• Sudden overwhelming fear for no reason, sometimes with a racing heart 

or fast breathing

• Involved in many fights, using a weapon, or wanting to badly hurt others

• Severe out-of-control behavior that can hurt yourself or others

• Not eating, throwing up, or using laxatives to make yourself lose weight

• Intense worries or fears that get in the way of your daily activities

• Extreme difficulty concentrating or staying still that puts you in danger or 

causes school failure

• Repeated use of drugs and alcohol

• Severe mood swings that cause problems in relationships

• Drastic changes in your behavior or personality

Modified with permission of the REACH Institute: http://www.thereachinstitute.org.

recovery Support groupS

Adult Children of Alcoholics: http://adultchildren.org

Al-Anon Family Groups: http://www.al-anon.org

Alcoholics Anonymous: http://www.aa.org 

Co-Anon Family Groups: http://co-anon.org

Co-Dependents Anonymous: http://www.coda.org/

Dual Recovery Anonymous: http://www.draonline.org

Families Anonymous: http://familiesanonymous.org/

LifeRing: http://www.lifering.org

Methadone Anonymous: http://www.methadoneanonymous.info

Nar-Anon Family Groups: http://www.nar-anon.org/ 

National Alliance for Medication Assisted Recovery: http://www.methadone.org

National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment: http://www.naabt.org

Rational Recovery: http://www.rational.org

Secular Organizations for Sobriety: http://www.cfiwest.org/sos/

SMART Recovery: http://www.smartrecovery.org

Women For Sobriety, Inc.: http://www.womenforsobriety.org

Your behavioral health is an important part of your physical health. 

If you are experiencing any of these feelings, let your doctor know. 

You are not alone...not 1 in a 1,000, but 1 in 10, because many 

people have similar problems. Getting help is what counts. 

Help is available, and treatments work. Don’t wait.

Two ways to obtain FREE consumer publications like this comic book

from SAMHSA’s Knowledge Application Program (KAP)

Call 1-877-SAMHSA-7 (1-877-726-4727) (English and Español).

Download or order from the SAMHSA Store: http://store.samhsa.gov.

Many KAP consumer publications are also available

for download from the SAMHSA Store in additional languages:

Cambodian (Khmer), Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

1

2
(Reap. Dec. 8545)

#### Jung Forwarding Co. (Talens & Son, Inc.) v. United States

Entry No. 758009.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement consists of artists’ colors imported from Holland.

> *5322. That the issues in the said appeal are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *International Expediters, Inc. for Winsor & Newton, Inc.,*40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 148 (C. A. D. 511), wherein it was held that cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of appraisement, and that the record in the said case may be incorporated in the record in the instant appeal.

> 3. That as to the items of the aforesaid merchandise designated on the invoice as Item No. 358 L 12/1, the said cost of production is 1.54 Netherlands Guilders each, less 25 per cent, less 2 per cent, less 4 per cent, plus packing; and that as to the items designated as Item No. 358 L 6/1, the said cost of production is 0.95 Netherlands Guilders each less 26 per cent, less 2 per cent, less 4 per cent, plus packing.

> 4. The above entitled appeal for reappraisement is abandoned as to all other items on the invoice.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the instant appeal may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise identified below, and that such values were as follows:

As to the items of merchandise designated on the invoice as item No. 358 L 12/1, 1.54 Netherland guilders each, less 25 per centum, less 2 per centum, less 4 per centum, plus packing.

As to the items of merchandise designated on the invoice as item No. 358 L 6/1, 0.95 Netherland guilders each, less 25 per centum, less 2 per centum, less 4 per centum, plus packing.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Michael Ryan, Respondent, v Dennis Ratchuk, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 378]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of third-party defendant, Lorraine Stegura. The evidence is uncontroverted that plaintiff, while riding a bicycle, was cut off by a vehicle, causing him to cross over into Stegura’s lane of traffic, and to collide with Stegura’s vehicle. By establishing that the head-on collision was caused solely by plaintiff having crossed over into her lane of traffic, Stegura established a complete defense to the third-party action, which sought damages for injuries arising out of the collision *(see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist.,*199 AD2d 1019, *affd*83 NY2d 947). In response, defendant-third-party plaintiff, Dennis Ratchuk, failed to offer any proof in admissible form that Stegura could have done anything to avoid the collision *(see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist., supra; see also, Gouchie v Gill,*198 AD2d 862).

The court properly denied Ratchuk’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint. A material issue of fact exists whether Ratchuk’s vehicle was involved in the accident.

Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to impose costs, attorneys’ fees and sanctions against Ratchuk, and we decline to do so. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.