alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: May

12, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013 - 0602 FROM: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9 SUBJECT: May

11, 2015 Telephone call with Fort Mojave Tribe Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants **SUMMARY** A conference call was held between the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and EPA Region 9 on May 11, 2015 to provide the tribe with a brief update of the publicly
- announced schedule for proposing a Federal Plan, and for taking final action on the proposed Clean Power Plan and Supplemental Proposal . **ATTENDEES** Fort Mojave Indian Tribe  Luke Johnson, Environmental Director  Christine Medley , GAP Coordinator EPA Region 9  Amy Z impfer, Associate Director, Region 9 Air Division  Ben Machol, Manager, Region 9 Clean Energy and Climate Change Office  Anita Lee, Region 9 Air Planning Office  Ann Lyons , Region 9 Office of Regional Counsel **ATTACHMENTS**  none
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

May 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20548

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO BENITO-HERRERA, also known as Cako,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-446-3

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Benito-Herrera appeals his guilty-plea sentence for

conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1203(a). He argues that the enhancement of his sentence

pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2A4.1(b)(3)

violates Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because

the enhancement was not charged in the indictment and the facts

underlying the enhancement were not found by a jury or admitted

by him. We do not address whether Benito-Herrera’s appeal waiver
No. 04-20548

-2-

applies to his Blakely argument, because, even if he did not

waive the right to raise this argument on appeal, his sentence

should be affirmed.

In Blakely, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment

prohibits state sentences greater than “the maximum sentence a

judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in

the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Blakely, 124 S.

Ct. at 2537. In United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 749-50

(2005), the Supreme Court held that the system of enhancements

established by the federal sentencing guidelines violated the

Sixth Amendment as construed in Blakely.

This court’s review is for plain error because BenitoHerrera’s Blakely argument is raised for the first time on

appeal. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir

2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005) 

(No. 04-9517). The enhancement of Benito-Herrera’s sentence

under U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(3) was plain error because the facts

underlying the enhancement were found by the sentencing judge

under a mandatory guidelines system. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-

21. Nothing in the record indicates, however, that the plain

error affected Benito-Herrera’s substantial rights. See id. at

522. Accordingly, Benito-Herrera’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from the financial
statements contained in the body of the
accompanying Form 10-Q and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               24,192
<SECURITIES>                                         2,031
<RECEIVABLES>                                        27,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          34,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     115,936
<PP&E>                                               105,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                       78,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       182,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                38,257
<BONDS>                                              8,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             14,374
<OTHER-SE>                                           88,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         182,485
<SALES>                                              47,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     47,893
<CGS>                                                33,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        44,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,323
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,323
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .18
        

                                       

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007

134144

LEROY HUBBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/ SC: 134144 COA: 275949 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forthe National Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to theactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible for theCompany's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, by order of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation

(Case C-124/04)

(2004/C 106/58)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation on the following questions:

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

No. 19

- 60441 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee
v. TWMELL AUSTIN LOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

Cons olidated with 19

- 60442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee
v. TWMELL LOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2 :13

- CR

- 7

- 1 USDC No. 2:05

- CR

- 11

- 1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 2, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60441 Document: 00515327404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2020No. 19

- 60441 c/w No. 19

- 60442

2 Twmell Austin Lott appeals (1) the 60

- month prison term imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for his 2006 conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana and (2) the concurrent 24

- month prison term imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for his 2014 conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm

. While he argues that the 60

- month sentence is substantively unreasonable, he does not brief any argument challenging the 24

- month sentence . Any challenge he seeks to raise to the 24

- month sentence is thus waived. See United States v. Edwards , 303 F.3d 606, 647 (5th Cir. 2002)

. The reco rd reflects that the district court determined that the 60

- month sentence was appropriate based on permissible sentencing considerations, namely, to deter future criminal conduct, protect the community, and control Lott’s recidivist conduct. See United St ates v. Sanchez , 900 F.3d 678, 68 4

- 86 (5th Cir. 2018)

. We must give due deference to the district court’s sentencing decision, and we decline to reweigh the applicable sentencing factors. See id. With respect to challenges to substantive reasonableness, we have routinely upheld revocation sentences exceeding the advisory policy range, even where, as here, the sentence equals the statutory maximum. See United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Lott’s arguments that the 60

- month sentence is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution’s protections against double jeopardy and violates his legitimate expectation of finality with respect to his drug

- conspiracy sentence are unavailing. See United Sta tes v. Jackson , 559 F.3d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the totality of the circumstances, the 60

- month sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See Sanchez , 900 F.3d at 68 4

- 86. The district court’s revocation judgments are AFFIRMED. Case: 19-60441 Document: 00515327404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2020
# Official Journal L 247I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 247I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6413 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 247I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6413 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1146 of 12 July 2021 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2021) 5279)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1146 of 12 July 2021 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2021) 5279)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 5279)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

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

EN

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

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# Official Journal C 254A/14 O

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 254A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4814 October 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 254A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4814 October 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Council |
| 2005/C 254A/1 | Publication of a vacancy notice for the post of head of team of duty officers – Communicator; Duty officer – Communicator — Reference: Council/B/023 and Council/B/024 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Council

2005/C 254A/1

Publication of a vacancy notice for the post of head of team of duty officers – Communicator; Duty officer – Communicator — Reference: Council/B/023 and Council/B/024

1

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

EN

---

III Notices

Council

| 14.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 254/1

---

PUBLICATION OF A VACANCY NOTICE FOR THE POST OF

HEAD OF TEAM OF DUTY OFFICERS — COMMUNICATOR

DUTY OFFICER — COMMUNICATOR

Reference: Council/B/023 and Council/B/024

(2005/C 254 A/01)

The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union is looking to fill a temporary vacancy for:

| — | a category B*, grade 7 (AST 7) post — Council/B/023 |
| --- | --- |

—

a category B*, grade 7 (AST 7) post — Council/B/023

| — | eight category B*, grade 5 (AST 5) posts — Council/B/024 |
| --- | --- |

—

eight category B*, grade 5 (AST 5) posts — Council/B/024

in the European Union Joint Situation Centre (SITCEN) in Brussels. SITCEN monitors and evaluates international events 24 hours a day, with the emphasis on sensitive areas, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and provides backing and support for the Secretary-General/High Representative of the European Union, the special representatives and other senior EU officials, as well as EU military operations and civilian crisis management operations.

Further information can be obtained from the Selection and Recruitment Department at the following email address:

service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int

or via its website at:

http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Deadline: 10 November 2005, the postmark serving as proof.

---
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**
**AUSTIN** 233234

"hi1

### prop8Pty Within th0 j~i4diOtlO4 Of thl8 etate,real or per4ona1, oorPorat4 or lneorporat4, and any lntereet therein, lnoludingl

. . .,or 

### gifta aado or intendedk, take l ffeot in 

### poreeeeion or enjoymnt after the deetb of the grantor or donor, ehall, upon pareing to or for the uoo of my **pertson,** oorporatlon,or aeoociation,be aubjeot to **e,tax** for the **bemilt** or the >tate*e@enera1 Reronuo Fund, in uooordanoewith the following olaeaifi0atlon.

. .I



### Inorder to **determln~** 

### the lntereet

### of themother and drughter in the **bank** 4ooount prior to the death OS th4 saother,

the intentionOS purtfee 14 the foremoet oomldera**tion.** 'a'8

are unable to find vhero my joint teneney ir oreat4d,despite the faot that th4 8UrTltOrbeaome4 entitled to all **of** the **money in**  the **bank.** Under the faotr ia thl8 oaee, either the aother or tha **daughter** oould **hare drawa**  oheok8 4qua~-ih amount to **the** full mount ranrainingin the v benk aooou@t and therrbrueo all Or themoney 

### toherown indlrldu41b4netltand dortroy whatever lnterertthe othrr nay hero had in th4 m~aor. All of theMonet wan Plaoed ln the bw aooortnt

by tb mothar. Without atbinptla$ **to** (live en$ name to the Pntereatof tha parties, it 18 ow opinion **that** in truth and In iaot the .mtherwa4 surely plaoi.n& ame In the bank **aooouut** in the mm4 of hsreelfof her Baughter, upon rvhloh either ehe and her dau&ter **oould** draw oheckerhea either 02 them dealred to do 80. 

### We believe that tko daugbtor reoelved no vested Lntereet in tha memy **at** the time the mother depositedthe came, but rather ereh tise the daughter drew a shook against the **aoaount** them 

### wae a 

### &iftfrom the mother to the daughter at that tlma **or** the amount **or** the ohaok. we bolleve **turthor that**  It wa8 the lntuatlon oi the nother that upon her death the remainingmoneyln the bank aooaunt 8hWa 6~ to the daughter for her own uee and benoflt end po4a44slonwlthout the n4O44slt~or probato prooradlage isi nferenoa to ouch money.
It 14 our opinion, therefore, **that** any **amuut** whioh thedaughter drew **bl** oheok upon said aoeount prior to the death of the ;rother w&4 a $Fit which took effe6t In enjoyaantand poss484lon a4 of the tlma that euoh ohe$k wae

### 235

drawn and the **aan4** ia thereiorenot aubfeot to the Taxao **iiiQ4rltence tar.**  It is our opinion, howwer, t&t the aawnt rmaining in the bank aooout at the t1.m of the death of the &other now purr08 to the daughter in **i)04444-** sion and rn;oymmt ae a girt fmr the mther Lntondingto take affeot d-tar the trx)thar'e derth. Therefore, euoh ull wunt ie **taxabLe** ~i~detthe Texcneinharftanoet4x law aa quoted **sugra.**

**Your4 very**  truly
No. 48673.

#### Protests 595086-G, etc., of F. N. Giavi, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and the cited cases, the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for the foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) 21⁄2 percent for cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146; (2) 1 percent for that similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra;*and (3) 2 percent for that similar to the Moliterno type cheese the subject of Abstract 41794. Protests sustained to this extent.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ending January 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. James Serrone, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)       The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  H. James  Serrone |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |
|                        |
| H. James Serrone            |
| Chief Financial Officer     |
| March 11, 2004              |

 

----
----

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2004

(2005/C 269/12)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.emcdda.eu.int/?nnodeid=6465

Table 1

Implementation of the budget for the financial year 2004

Table 2

Revenue and expenditure accounts for the financial years 2004 and 2003

Table 3

Balance sheet as at 31 December 2004 and 31 December 2003

----
#### Carson Pirie Scott & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7631.

Entry No. 5586.

— Invoice dated London, England, April 14, 1942.

Certified April 16, 1942.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1942.

(Decided December 1, 1948)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiff.

*David N, Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.