alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HAROLD D. BRUNER, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

11 USCMA 658, 29 CMR 474

No. 13,955

Decided July 15, 1960

*Lieutenant Colonel M. G. Truesdale,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Elvin R. Coon, Jr.,*USMC, and *Commander Craig McKee*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

*659Opinion of the Court

HomeR FeRGUSON, Judge:

Tried by general court-martial, the accused was found guilty of absence without leave, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, 10 USC § 886. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $45.00 per month for nine months, and confinement at hard labor for nine months. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review on the issue whether the sentence adjudged was legal.

Accused absented himself without leave on February 15, 1952. The absence was terminated on October 26, 1959. On the date of accused’s departure, the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, in paragraph 127e, provided a maximum punishment of dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, confinement for six months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade for any absence without leave in excess of sixty days. In 1954, the President amended that provision of the Manual to increase the punishment for unauthorized absences in excess of thirty days to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year. Executive Order 10565, September 28, 1954, 16 FR 6299. The law officer instructed the court-martial before which accused appeared that the increased limitation governed the penalty for his crime.

The offense of absence without leave is committed on the day on which the absence is initiated. United States v Emerson, 1 USCMA 43, 1 CMR 43; United States v Lovell, 7 USCMA 445, 22 CMR 235; United States v Posnick, 8 USCMA 201, 24 CMR 11. The punishment for a crime is governed by the penalty in effect at the time of its commission, unless it has been subsequently lessened. United States v Sippel, 4 USCMA 50, 15 CMR 50; United States v Downard, 1 USCMA 346, 3 CMR 80. Thus, it is clear beyond cavil that the maximum-punishment which could have been imposed upon the accused for his offense-was dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for six months. United States v Perry, 17 CMR 548; United States v Smith, 18 CMR 346. Accordingly, the law officer erred preju-dicially in instructing the court-martial that the limitation set forth in Executive Order 10565, supra, applied in accused’s case.

The accused prays only for reassessment of sentence at the board of review level. Thus, we grant relief only to> that extent.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for action consistent with this opinion.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Lati-MER concur.
s

510000m.£ |

UO

BATHYMETRIC MAP

169°

7870000m.N,

CHUKCHI SEA
STUDDS

690000m.E,

| H
209 |
it

1779000m.N,

77g0000m-N

984.

710000 E |

Base map information including bathymetry was compiled by the National
Ocean Service (NOS). Bathymetry was compiled from NOS hydrographic
surveys (see index). NOS hydrographic survey data complies with Inter-
national Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Special Publication 44 accuracy
standards or those used at the date of the survey. This is a reproduction of a
facsimile of the bathymetric manuscript and does not necessarily represent
the final publication. This information is not intended for navigational
purposes.

Bathymetric Contour Interval: 10 meters to maximum depth, supplemented
by 2 meter intervals.

Datum: Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).

Universal Transverse Mercator Grid. Zone 2; 10,000 Meter Ticks (---) are
shown inside the neatline.

Protraction Diagram data shown in a subdued (screened) black was com-
piled by the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

THIS MAP IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing purposes, for
such purposes use the MMS Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction
Diagrams.

Heavy line(s} indicate limits of these protraction

diagrams.
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION
‘SURVEY ] ‘SURVEY ‘SURVEY SURVEY
NUMBER | DATE ‘SCALE LINE SPACING
thaur. ices)
ees? 1262 1:100,000 so
063 1 1He0000 cots
ees 1802 116000 Sos

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
1984

Produced at Washington, D.C.
for

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
Scale 1:250,000
1

5 ° 5 oO 15

20 Statute Miles

5 9 5 10 15 20 25

30 Kilometers

5 ° 5 10 15 Nautical Miles

70

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

i7ie HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX igs
78 71°

ie
Photographic copies of the above and prior surveys
may be obtained, at the cost of reproduction, by
addressing the Director (N/CG 243), National
‘Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20852

61 0000m.E,

STUDDS
NOS NR 2-4 (OCS)

INDEX TO
174° 165°
328 ADJOINING SHEETS 28

-

KARO.
NR 31

i
T
Ne ARS

17
y,
oy, —|
S
Eq |
69 a
174° 165

We

= NIT SIRE HO AMI¥d-40 3902
# C_2016098EN.01002102.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 28 December 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis

(Case C-698/15)

(2016/C 098/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Applicant:

Defendants: David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 (‘Digital Rights Ireland’) (including, in particular, paragraphs 60 to 62 thereof) lay down mandatory requirements of EU law applicable to a Member State's domestic regime governing access to data retained in accordance with national legislation, in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter (‘the EU Charter’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 (‘Digital Rights Ireland’) (including, in particular, paragraphs 60 to 62 thereof) lay down mandatory requirements of EU law applicable to a Member State's domestic regime governing access to data retained in accordance with national legislation, in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter (‘the EU Charter’)?

| 2. | Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland expand the scope of Articles 7 and/or 8 of the EU Charter beyond that of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) as established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland expand the scope of Articles 7 and/or 8 of the EU Charter beyond that of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) as established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)?

---
# C_2015190EN.01003402.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/34

---

Action brought on 20 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-46/15)

(2015/C 190/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, N. de Montigny and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Brussels settlements office refusing to recognise a disease suffered by the applicant as being a serious illness.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the head of the Brussels settlements office of 27 May 2014 rejecting the request for recognition of the disease suffered by the applicant as being a serious illness and the request for 100 % payment of medical expenses connected with it; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the head of the Brussels settlements office of 27 May 2014 rejecting the request for recognition of the disease suffered by the applicant as being a serious illness and the request for 100 % payment of medical expenses connected with it;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00413

- CV

In the Interest of E. C., a c hild §

§

§

§ From the 322nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (322

- 529035

- 13 )

September 11 , 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston



### JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After reviewing appellee B.F.’s motion for rehearing, we deny the motion.

Having withdrawn our prior opinion of August 7, 2014 to correct a clerical error,

we also with draw our judgment of August 7, 2014 and substitute the following.

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is reversed. We render judgment dismissing the suit.

It is further ordered that appellees B.F. and W.F. shall pay all of the costs

of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
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.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $24,001,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $2,400,100 for Section 8(a)(2)(A). 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January 22, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination, (202) 326-2879.

(Authority: 15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5)).

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-821 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Consumers Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jack I. Ehrenhaus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) 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 the
            operation of the Company.


-------------------------------------
Jack I. Ehrenhaus
Chief Financial Officer
March 22, 2007
# C_2016383EN.01001401.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Dr Vita v EUIPO (69)

(Case T-360/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark 69 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 383/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dr Vita sp. z o.o. (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2015 (Case R 2513/2014-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign 69 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dr Vita sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dr Vita sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
EXHIBIT 34.1

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Management Committee

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2016-1, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2017 and for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2016-1, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2016-1.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2017 and for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ CohnReznick LLP



Roseland, New Jersey

March 23, 2018
# C_2017095EN.01000901.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR)

(Case T-568/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR - Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 095/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta), Felice D’Onofrio (Barletta) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: All Star CV (Hilversum, Netherlands) (represented by C. Sleep, Solicitor)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 1906/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between All Star, on the one hand, and Messrs G. Morgese, P. Morgese and F. D’Onofrio, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Messrs Giuseppe Morgese, Pasquale Morgese and Felice D’Onofrio to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Messrs Giuseppe Morgese, Pasquale Morgese and Felice D’Onofrio to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

1

---
# C_2015127EN.01000901.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran

(Case C-7/15)

(2015/C 127/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Essen

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran

Question referred

Question referred

Is the inclusion of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period from 9 September 2007 to 24 May 2009 inclusive, in particular on the basis of the Council Decisions of 29 May 2006 (2006/379/EC) (2), 28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC) (3), 20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC) (4), 15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5), and 26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6), invalid?

1

2

3

4

5

6

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21.

2

(3)  OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.

3

(4)  OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100.

4

(5)  OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.

5

(6)  OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25.

6

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 7 

Relating to the death of Howard S. Liebengood, former Sergeant at Arms 

of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. 

HAGEL, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

DODD, and Mr. GRAHAM) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Relating to the death of Howard S. Liebengood, former 

Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood served as a captain in the 

United States Army Military Police Corps in Vietnam 

from 1968 to 1970, receiving the Bronze Star and the 

Army Commendation Medal for his exemplary service; 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood began his service to the Senate in 1973 as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate 

Committee; 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood served as an aide to the Senate Church Committee in 1975, as the minority staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 
2 

•SRES 7 ATS 

1976, and as legislative counsel to Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker, Jr., in 1980; 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood served as Sergeant at Arms 

of the Senate from 1981 to 1983; 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood served as chief of staff to 

Senator Fred Thompson from 2001 to 2003, and as chief 

of staff to Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist, 

M.D., from 2003 until his death in January, 2005; 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood was a caring and devoted 

husband, father, and colleague who served with the utmost humility and distinction and was admired and respected by all as a teacher, adviser, and friend; and 

Whereas Howard S. Liebengood inspired others through his 

personal leadership, generosity, and great love for the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the Senate has heard with profound sorrow 

3 and deep regret the announcement of the death of 

4 Howard S. Liebengood; and 

5 (2) the Secretary of the Senate communicate 

6 these resolutions to the House of Representatives 

7 and transmit an enrolled copy of these resolutions to 

8 the family of Howard S. Liebengood. 

Æ