alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50580 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Christopher Davidson,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:20

- CR

- 9

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Jones,** and **Costa ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
In this case, Christopher Davidson pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. During the same rearraignment hearing, he pleaded guilty to three counts of a separate indictment : one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20, 2021
Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 20-50580 Document: 00515828088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021No. 20

- 50580

2 more of actual methamphetamine and two counts of distribution of five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The district court grouped all
four counts in calcu lating his offense level, and he was sentenced on all the counts at the same sentencing hearing.
Davidson argues that the district court erred by grouping his firearm
offense with his drug offenses

. Because he did not object to the grouping in
the distric t court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Izaguirre , 973 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2020). Davidson’s firearm possession in this case was a specific offense characteristic of his drug offenses, as he received the

two

- level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on his firearm possession. We have affirmed the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement in Davidson’s appeal in No. 20

- 50579.
As we noted in that appeal, Davidson possessed the firearm near drug paraphernalia in his backpack within the time frame of his drug conspiracy
and less than a week after his two distribution offenses. Because Davidson’s firearm possession was a specific offense characteristic of his drug offenses,
the grouping of his firearm and drug offenses was not plainly erroneo us

. See
U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c); United States v. Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1135 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1994) ; see also United States v. Le , 512 F.3d 128, 134 (5th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that we may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the rec ord)

.
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-50580 Document: 00515828088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
* 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

June 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60583

Summary Calendar

 

In The Matter Of: RONALD ELLZY WOODALL,

Debtor,

 

RONALD ELLZY WOODALL; MISSISSIPPI INSURANCE 

GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION,

Appellees,

versus

DORIS MERCHANT; DON WHITE,

Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:01-CV-328-PG)

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Doris Merchant and Don White appeal the district court’s

reversal of a bankruptcy court order authorizing lifting an

automatic bankruptcy stay to allow a medical malpractice action to

proceed to trial against the debtor in state court. The only issue

for the district court was whether insurance coverage existed for
2

the claimed malpractice — if so, the stay-lift was appropriate.

The district court determined there was no coverage because the

debtor (insured) failed to report the claim to the insurance

company within the policy period as required by the policy.

Our review is de novo. E.g., In re Sutton, 904 F.2d 327, 329

(5th Cir. 1990). Based upon the parties’ briefs and the relevant

portions of the record, especially the insurance policy, and

essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its

comprehensive opinion, the reversal of the stay-lift was proper. 

AFFIRMED
# C_2016106EN.01000901.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-163/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 23 - Licence - Register of Community trade marks - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the Register))

(2016/C 106/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Youssef Hassan

Applicant:

Defendant: Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community trade mark which is the subject of the licence, although that licence has not been entered in the Register of Community trade marks.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

1

---
EXHIBIT 10.1





SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is by and between Unico American Corporation (“Company”) and Cary L. Cheldin (“Emp1oyee”):





A. Paragraph 3.1 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was effective as of December 15, 2007 and amended effective April 1, 2009 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:





3.1. SALARY.As compensation for the services provided by Employee under this Agreement, Company will pay Employee an annual salary of no less than $315,000 payable in accordance with Company’s usual payroll procedures.  The annual salary shall be subject to increase from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Directors of Company.





B. Paragraph 6 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was effective as of December 15, 2007 and amended effective April 1, 2009 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:





6. TERM/TERMINATION.Employee’s employment under this Agreement shall be for a term beginning on January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2014. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by Company for Cause or by Employee for other than breach of this Agreement by the Company upon thirty days written notice.  This Agreement may also be terminated by Company without Cause upon thirty days written notice or by the Employee at any time on account of the breach of this Agreement by Company; however, in either of such events, subject to the limitation described in Section 3.6,the Company shall pay Employee, as and in the manner provided in Section 3.4, all salary, bonuses and benefits as provided herein for the remainder of the term of this Agreement.





C. This Amendment is effective January 1, 2010.





D. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged.








COMPANY:


Unico American Corporation





By:/s/ Lester A. Aaron                                                             Date: March 26, 2010


Lester A. Aaron, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer








EMPLOYEE:





/s/ Cary L. Cheldin                                                                      Date: March 26, 2010


Cary L. Cheldin
No. 39061.

#### Protests 945012-G, etc., of Wenchow Importing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) the vases in question were held dutiable at 70 percent ad valorem under paragraph 212, Tariff Act of 1930, and the wooden stands at 33}$ percent under paragraph 412.
No. 56134.

protest 164304-K (New York).

#### B. Shackman & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400' the court dismissed the protest.
Case Mo. 14,613.

#### UNITED STATES v. BLOOMGART.

[8 Int. Rev. Rec. 3.]

District Court, D. Kentucky.

June 24, 1868.

Embezzlement — Nine and Imprisonment.

Joseph Bloomgart was indicted and convicted of embezzlement whilst engaged as a clerk in the United States depository in this city. The conviction was had under the decision of the supreme court in the case of U. S. v. Hartwell [6 Wall. (73 U. S.) 385]. [Case No. 14,012]. The court sentenced accused to confinement in the penitentiary' at hard labor for the term of six years, and ordered him to pay a fine to the United States of $14,838.77. This-sum was ascertained to be the amount embezzled by the accused, and that he be confined until the same is paid. °

THE COURT

said this was the first time-he was called on to pronounce judgment against an acquaintance, and that motives off friendship inclined him to leniency, but that he had a duty to perform which he could not overlook, and that the security of the government required that such an offense should be punished, as the only security the govern*1183ment had was the integrity of its officers. In answer to the usual question, Bloomgart replied that he had no objections to the verdict of the jury — that he was guilty — but asked the court to save his family from disgrace attaching to them.

It is understood that Bloomgart’s friends will ask the president to pardon him.
# C_2016118EN.01004301.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/43

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC

(Case F-33/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 118/49)

Language of the case: French

The single Judge has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.

1

---
#### Daugherty et al. *v.*Daugherty et al., Appellant.

*Equity*— Practice—Buie *68*— Decree—Final *Decree.*

On a bill in equity in partition proceedings, a decree entered by the lower court cannot be considered as final. A decree nisi should first have been entered.

Under the provisions of Rule 68 of the Equity Rules, upon the filing of the adjudication, the Prothonotary shall enter a decree nisi and give notice to the parties, or their counsel of record, of the entry of such decree. On failure to follow such rule, the Superior Oourt will remit the record for reconsideration, and disposition in accordance with the proper practice.

Argued April 17, 1925.

Appeal,. No. 2, April T., 1925, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Jefferson Co., Sitting in Equity, April T., 1922, No. 3, in the case of William Daugherty, and Martha Daugherty, his’wife; Elizabeth Smith, widow; Stewart Daugherty and Clara Daugherty, his wife; Marjorie Penfield and R. F. Penfield, her husband; Finley Daugherty, and Lizzie Daugherty, his wife; Sarah Robinson and Paul J. Robinson, her husband; J. C. Boner and Willena Boner, his wife v. J. D. Daugherty, single; Mary Daugherty; Mabel Patterson and L. E. Patterson, her husband; Robert F. Daugherty, single; Eva Calhoun and Walter Calhoun, her husband; and Wade Daugherty, single; Clyde Shick, single and E. M. Shick.

Before Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Reversed.

Bill in equity in partition. Before Corbet, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The court below decreed “that the plaintiffs are seized *422in their demesne as of fee of an undivided two-thirds right, title and interest of, in and to the mineral and coal in and under the tract of land in said plaintiffs’ bill described, etc.” Defendants appealed.

April 28, 1925:

*Error assigned*was, in entering the decree in partition.

*Raymond E. Brown,*of *Brown & Means,*and with him *W. L. McCracken,*for appellants.

*W. N. Conrad,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

The record shows such material departure from equity Rules, 68 etc., that we are constrained at once to remit the record for reconsideration and disposition in accordance with those rules. The decree entered by the lower court cannot be considered as final. A decree nisi should have first been entered.

Decree reversed and record remitted with a procedendo. Costs of this appeal to abide final determination of the casa
# C_2017030EN.01004502.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)

(Case T-549/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CAFE DEL SOL - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence))

(2017/C 030/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1888/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1888/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1888/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1

---
### Prolec GE Designs - Optimized on 11/4/2011

90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4



### DL1 - 50 kVA Pad Silicon SA1 90% 110% 130% 150% 170% 190% 210% dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4



### DL2 - 25 kVA Pole Silicon SA1

90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4



### DL4 - 150 kVA 3 - Phase Pad Silicon SA1 90% 110% 130% 150% 170% 190% 210% dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4



### DL5 - 1500 kVA 3 - Phase Pad

Silicon SA1 

### Prolec GE Design Plots 2011-11-08 .xls
# C_2015294EN.01001701.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15)

(2015/C 294/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Defendant:

Question referred
   (1)

Question referred

1

In determining the likelihood of confusion of a Community word mark, what is the significance of a situation in which, from the perspective of the average consumer in some Member States, the aural similarity of the Community trade mark with another sign claimed to infringe that trade mark is eliminated by a difference in meaning, whereas from the perspective of the average consumer in other Member States it is not:

| (a) | In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive?

| (b) | If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# Official Journal C 230/20 S

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 230 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4820 September 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 230

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4820 September 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 230/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 230/2 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 230/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3929 — Barclays Private Equity/Neumayer) (1) | 5 |
| 2005/C 230/4 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 230/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 230/2

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons (1)

2

2005/C 230/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3929 — Barclays Private Equity/Neumayer) (1)

5

2005/C 230/4

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

6

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 230/5 | Call for Proposals — DG EAC No 25/05 — ‘Promotion of active European Citizenship’ — Support to town twinning actions citizens' meetings 2006 | 9 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 230/5

Call for Proposals — DG EAC No 25/05 — ‘Promotion of active European Citizenship’ — Support to town twinning actions citizens' meetings 2006

9

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
No. 53206.

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 132104-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 40369.

#### Protest 842560-G of S. H. Kress & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of noisemakers in chief value of wood similar to those the subject of *Dessart*v. *United States*(T. D. 45169). The claim at 335⁄8 percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 52 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.52
                                     Agreed to September 6, 2005        

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Supreme Court of the United States the 
catafalque which is situated in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of the 
Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in the Supreme Court 
Building in connection with services to be conducted there for the late 
honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```