alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40954 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARMANDO ARELLANO-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-965-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Armando Arellano-Delgado appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for attempted unlawful reentry into the United States after deportation for an aggravated felony conviction. He was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Arellano argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Arellano’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).No. 06-40954 -2- Although Arellano contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Arellano properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Arellano also argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release and, therefore, that this condition should be vacated. As Arellano concedes, this claim is not ripe for review. See United States v. Carmichael , 343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2003)

. Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
#### United States v. The May Department Stores Co., Inc.

No. 7617.

Entry No. 711980.

— Invoice dated London, England, August 12,1947.

Certified August 19, 1947.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 27, 1947.

(Decided September 21, 1948)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Tompkins & Tompkins (Allerton deC. Tompkins*of counsel) for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement concerns the dutiable value of men's dressing gowns exported from London and entered at the port of New York.

An agreed set of facts establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is sterling 46/6 each, less cash discount of *3%*per centum, plus case and packing as invoiced. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 415 

Expressing the continuing support of the Senate to the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC), and commending the efforts of that 

vital program as it carries out its mission of instilling the values of 

citizenship and service in the hearts and minds of the youth of the 

United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2006 

Mr. ENSIGN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the continuing support of the Senate to the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC), and commending the efforts of that vital program as it carries 

out its mission of instilling the values of citizenship and 

service in the hearts and minds of the youth of the 

United States. 

Whereas, since its inception in 1913, the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps has successfully functioned for over 

90 years; 

Whereas the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps has 

provided citizenship training, discipline, stability, and patriotic values to the youth of the United States throughout the Nation; 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 415 IS

Whereas millions of students have benefitted from the Junior 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; 

Whereas, in 2005, there were over 500,000 students enrolled 

in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs in 

approximately 3,400 secondary schools; and 

Whereas the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is 

taught by a dedicated cadre of retired officers and staff 

non-commissioned officers of the Armed Forces who love 

the United States and who are working to secure its future: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses appreciation to the Junior Re3 serve Officers’ Training Corps for— 

4 (A) the leadership training that the pro5 gram provides to the youth of the United 

6 States; and 

7 (B) the outstanding results that the pro8 gram has achieved; 

9 (2) commends the professionalism and dedica10 tion displayed daily by the retired members of the 

11 United States Armed Forces who serve as instruc12 tors in the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; 

13 and 

14 (3) proudly honors the modern-day members of 

15 the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, who 

16 represent a promising group of young men and 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 415 IS

1 women who continue to strive to achieve their full 

2 potential. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
# C_2016078EN.01003601.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Proia v Commission

(Case F-61/15) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Member of contract staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Usual residence prior to the entry into service - Period of study followed by a traineeship and successive employment contracts in the State of employment - Presumed intention of the member of staff concerned to move the permanent centre of his interests from the start of his studies in the State of employment - Absence))

(2016/C 078/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Proia (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the Commission of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant Mr Proia the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant Mr Proia the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Proia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Proia.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015, p. 27.

1

---
Date: March 3, 2015 

Meeting: Shell- Methane 

Rule(s) Discussed: 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organ ization Phone N um ber 

- fiJA 

~t'J- ~'flo&- I 'ID-

--~:lo "2. - b l-C~ -q b G:] 

?.-0). -J 'f J ']'73r(;
A98A2418.

#### PENNEY v. THE STATE.

(511 SE2d 275)

Pope, Presiding Judge.

Michael Ray Penney appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an allegedly void sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On May 3, 1990, Penney was indicted for burglary. On May 17, 1990, he pled guilty and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On December 14, 1994, a federal court granted Penney’s petition for habeas corpus relief and ordered the case remanded for actions consistent with the federal court’s ruling. On May 20, 1996, with the assistance of retained counsel and pursuant to a negotiated plea, Penney again pled guilty to the burglary charges. Penney agreed to accept a sentence of five years on intensive probation *with no credit for time served*instead of pleading to the original ten years imprisonment. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Penney accordingly. Penney did not appeal this conviction nor did he file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Shortly after he entered his guilty plea, Penney violated the terms and conditions of his probation. On March 19, 1998, the balance of Penney’s probated sentence was revoked. Penney did not seek a discretionary appeal of the order revoking his probation.

On July 8,1998, Penney filed a pro se motion for correction of his sentence. The motion was not filed within the term of court in which the sentence was entered. “A trial court is without jurisdiction to modify a sentence after the expiration of the term of court during which the sentence was entered. *Latham v. State, 225*Ga. App. 147 (483 SE2d 322) (1997). . . . Nevertheless, even after the expiration of the applicable term of court, the trial court has jurisdiction to resentence the defendant where the sentence imposed is void. *Gonzalez v. State,*201 Ga. App. 437, 438 (411 SE2d 345) (1991). A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow.’ *443
      *Crumbley v. State,*261 Ga. 610, 611 (409 SE2d 517) (1991).” *Shaw v. State,*233 Ga. App. 232, 233 (504 SE2d 18) (1998).

Decided February 1, 1999

Reconsideration denied February 12, 1999.

Michael R. Penney, *pro se.*

*John C. Pridgen, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Penney argued in his motion that his sentence was illegal and void because he was not given credit for time served. The trial court denied this motion because it was abundantly clear from the record that Penney knowingly and voluntarily exchanged the time he served on his previous ten year sentence for a five year probated sentence. Credit for time served is a personal benefit Penney was authorized to waive by his decision to enter a plea and accept a negotiated sentence. See *Powell v. State,*229 Ga. App. 52, 53 (2) (494 SE2d 200) (1997). We find no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beasley, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the quarterly report of United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert S. Rubinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Date:  May 10, 2011
By:  /s/ Robert S. RubingerRobert S. Rubinger
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Charles T. Dickson, Chief Financial Officer of United Components, Inc. certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Components, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which the report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006         By:                            /s/ CHARLES T. DICKSON   Name:  Charles T. Dickson   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 19, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-15066

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 07-00501-CV-OC-10-GRJ

CHICK-FIL-A, INC., 

 Plaintiff - Counter

Defendant-Appellee,

versus

CFT DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,

PANDA EXPRESS, INC., 

Defendants-Counter

Claimants-Appellants.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 19, 2010)

BEFORE TJOFLAT, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the grant by the district court of a declaratory

judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Chick-fil-A)

against CFT Developments, LLC, Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda

Express, Inc. (collectively, Panda Express). After discovery and a four-day bench

trial, the district court enforced a valid restrictive covenant precluding Panda

Express from constructing, leasing or operating a restaurant on property adjoining

Chick-fil-A in Mount Dora, Florida. It permanently enjoined Panda Express from

operating a restaurant on that property.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the briefs, the

arguments of counsel presented, and the well-reasoned findings of fact and

conclusions of law made by the district court. Finding no error, the judgment of

the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

2
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trustand Servicing Agreement dated as of February 6, 2016, by and among CITIGROUPCOMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC, as SpecialServicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and CITIBANK,N.A., as Certificate Administrator with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-225L (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuantto Section 13.7 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 

 

1.                  Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.                 To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period. 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton 

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank 

 

 

|  Wells Fargo  Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# C_2016364EN.01003102.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-82/15) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal of reimbursement of medical expenses - Laser therapy - No scientific validity of the treatment - Rules governing designation of an independent doctor - Competent medical association - Opinion of the independent doctor - Scope of the judicial review - Grounds of refusal of reimbursement - Internal provisions on sickness insurance - Objective of the laser therapy - Palliative effects on pain - Prior authorisation of the medical officer - Material harm - Premature conclusions - Non-pecuniary harm - Amount not stated - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 364/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers, and subsequently by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and J.-P. Minnaert, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and subsequently by: G. Faedo and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of the decision not to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant for laser treatment undergone in 2007 and, secondly, of the consecutive and connected decisions taken by the bank in 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of 4 December 2014, by which it refused to reimburse Mr Carlo De Nicola for the costs of FP3 laser therapy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of 4 December 2014, by which it refused to reimburse Mr Carlo De Nicola for the costs of FP3 laser therapy;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015, p. 59.

---
# C_2015221EN.01000202.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA

(Case C-188/15)

(2015/C 221/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

Applicants:

Defendant: Micropole Univers SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

‘Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 78/2000/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that the wish of a customer of an information technology consulting company no longer to have the information technology services of that company provided by an employee, a design engineer, wearing an Islamic headscarf, is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out?’

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

1

---
# C_2016364EN.01003401.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — HL v Commission

(Case F-112/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the applicant’s name - Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion - Opinions adopted by a joint body - Obligation to state grounds))

(2016/C 364/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Berscheid and A.-A. Gilly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that HL shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that HL shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 55.

---