alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JESSIE D. DOTSTRY, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 488, 24 CMR 298

No. 10,149

Decided December 13, 1957

*First Lieutenant Edioin E. Allen*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Colonel Edioard M. O’Connell.*

*First Lieutenant Jay D. Fischer*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee,*
      *489
      *Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton,*and *First Lieutenant Thomas M. Lofton.*

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

The issue here presented has been decided in appellant’s favor by the cases of United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382, and United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287. For the reasons stated in those opinions, the conviction must be set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board, in its discretion, may approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence or it may order a rehearing on the principal charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Latimer, Judge (concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result only for the reason set forth in United States v Sumrel, 8 USCMA 399, 24 CMR 209 (concurring opinion).
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 584 

To authorize the production of records, testimony, and legal representation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize the production of records, testimony, and legal 

representation. 

Whereas the United States Attorney’s Office for the District 

of Columbia is conducting an investigation of the financial disclosures made by Dr. Lester Crawford to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in 

connection with confirmation proceedings on Dr. 

Crawford’s nomination to be Commissioner of the Food 

and Drug Administration; 

Whereas the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions has received a request from the United States 

Attorney’s Office for testimony of three employees of the 

Committee and for records of the Committee relevant to 

the investigation; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

SRES 584 ATS 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their 

official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken 

from such control or possession but by permission of the 

Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Health, Education, 

2 Labor, and Pensions is authorized to produce documents 

3 and committee staff are authorized to testify in these and 

4 related proceedings, except where a privilege should be as5 serted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent employees of the Committee on Health, Edu8 cation, Labor, and Pensions in connection with the docu9 ment production and testimony authorized in section one 

10 of this resolution. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
# C_2015205EN.01003401.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — CRM v Commission

(Case T-43/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Registration of a protected geographical indication - ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2015/C 205/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)) (OJ 2014 L 316, p. 3).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCharacterization of the general purpose research furnace for low-G directional solidification experimentsPreliminary tests have shown that it is possible to control the temperature settings in NASA's General Purpose Research Furnace in such a manner as to obtain a constant rate of movement of a high temperature isotherm down the length of the furnace. These tests also showed that a temperature gradient on the order of 40 deg cm could be obtained in the furnace while moving the particular isotherm of interest, i.e., 900 C. This provides the possibility of performing directional solidification experiments in the furnace on a MEA flight in the low gravity environment provided by the Shuttle. A functional dependency of growth rate on perturbations during the the growth has been derived and shows the importance of avoiding non-steady growth rates and changing temperature gradients.Document ID19840005143Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsCrouch, R. K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Fripp, A. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Debnam, W. J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Clark, I. O.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Zweiner, J. W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Carlson, F. M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1983Subject CategoryGround Support Systems And Facilities (Space)Report/Patent NumberNASA-TM-85718NAS 1.15:85718Accession Number84N13211Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 542-03-30-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840005143.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10158

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NIDAL ABDULAFATTAH AL-ZURAQI,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-114-A

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nidal Abdulafattah Al-Zuraqi appeals from his sentence

following his conviction for two counts of bank fraud. He argues

that the district court erred by increasing his offense level

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice and that

this court has incorrectly interpreted the commentary to § 3C1.1. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Given

the trial testimony of both Al-Zuraqi and a bank employee, the

district court did not clearly err by determining that Al-Zuraqi 
No. 96-10158

- 2 -

had given false testimony and thus obstructed justice. Further,

Al-Zuraqi’s claim that this court has misinterpreted the law is

foreclosed by the rule in this Circuit that one panel may not

overrule the decision of another. See United States v. Storm, 36

F.3d 1289, 1297 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1798

(1995). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 8988)

Entry No. 1427, etc.

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided September 11, 1957)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to certain bicycles exported from Germany and entered at the port of Baltimore, Md.

The cases have been submitted for decision on an agreed set of facts that show statutory cost of production to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and establish such value to be $22.04, less the items marked “X” on the invoices, plus packing, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 13,941.

#### THOMPSON v. BALTIMORE PASS. R. CO.

[Cited in Cully v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., Case No. 3,466. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,

Successor /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 8, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00913

- CV

David MEDRANO

, Appell ant

v.

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY , Successor by Merger Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d.b.a HOMEQ, as servicing Agent for Duetsche Bnk. National Trust Company as Trustee, Appellee s

From the 37t h Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 00027 The Honorable Richard E. Price, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant David Medrano requested a partial reporter’s record , which has been filed

. Appellees subsequently submitted a request that the court reporter prepare additional parts of the record at appellant’s expense. Appellant has not paid for the additional parts of the record, and the court reporters have asked this court to determine who is responsible for payment.

Whether appellant must bear the cos t of the additions to the record depends up on whether appellant has filed a statement of the points or issues to be presented on appeal. The record before us does not contain statement of points. We order appellant to file by April 14, 2015 a statement of the points or issues to be presented on appeal if he intends to proceed with a partial reporter’s record pursuant to Rule 34.6(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

If Medrano files a statement of points or issues, then he will be limited to those issues and the record designated by the parties will be presumed to constitute the entire record. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 34.6(c)( 1), (4); Bennett v. Cochran , 96 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 2002). In that event, Medrano must pay for the parts of the record requested by appellees unless they are not necessary to the resolution of the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6( c)(3). If Medrano contends any of the additions requested by appell ee s are not necessary , he must notify this court at t he time he files his statement of points or issues, and we will abate for a trial court determination of the question.If Medrano does not file a stat e ment of points or issue s by the date ordered, this court will presume the omitted parts of the record support the t rial court’s judgmen t

. See Bennett

, 96

S.W.3d at 229. In that event, i f appellees desire add i tional parts of the record be prepared and filed, they may direct the court reporter to prepare a supplemental record, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(d), b ut appellees will bear the cost of paying the reporter. This court may later tax costs differently.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2015138EN.01003501.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2015 — Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl v Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-59/15)

(2015/C 138/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl

Applicant:

Defendants: Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it contrary to the principle laid down by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, made applicable to the sphere of procurement contracts by Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1), that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, for a provision of national law, such as that set out in Articles 9, 13 and 14 of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002, applicable to the circumstances of the case, to provide, for access to administrative court proceedings relating to procedures for the award of public contracts, for payment of a greater amount of a standard fee than that fixed for access to administrative court proceedings in other spheres?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

1

---
# C_2016191EN.01003101.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T-364/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme - Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 191/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2015) 3117 final of 4 May 2015 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 432 637,97, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241408192 and 3241409206 relating to EUR 155 507,97 and EUR 277 130 respectively.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-364/15 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-364/15 R.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### Ricardo Raymundo REYES LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72751.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Philippe Dwelshauvers, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Raymundo Reyes Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings in which he was ordered removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *see Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion by finding that Reyes Lopez’s motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed eight months after the date of the in absentia removal order. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (requiring a motion to reopen based on “exceptional circumstances” to be filed within 180 days after the date of the in absentia removal order); *Singh-Bhathal v. INS,*170 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir.1999).

Reyes Lopez’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by denying his motion to accept a late brief fails because the BIA has discretion whether to *832grant motions for extensions of time or to accept late filings. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (“In its discretion, the Board may consider a brief that has been filed out of time”).

Reyes Lopez’s contention that the BIA’s decision without opinion was improper is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### a. 

## PETITION FOREXEMPTION

Hans-GunterVosseler Blackbird Aviation, LLC 8701 West Irlo Bronson Memorial Hwy. Suite 200 Kissimmee, Florida 34747 Business Address: 86ooAirport Blvd. Leesburg, Florida 34788 Phone: (352) 630-4431 Email: vosseler@avc.com.sg
b. Exemption requested for Non-Citizen Corporation, Title 14, C.F.R. part 47.65 (US citizenship).
c. I am requesting an exemption for a Non-Citizen Corporation in orderto apply for a FAA Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate in the name of BlackbirdAviation, a Florida Limited Liability Company which has an established business address at 86oo Airport Blvd., Leesburg Florida. d. Blackbird Aviation will bring new revenue to both local businesses and regional aviation businessby engaging in the purchase, refurbishment and resale ofgeneral aviation aircraft.
e. There are no reasons why grantingthe exemption would adversely affect safety. f. Exemption requested for Non-Citizen Corporation, Title 14, C.F.R. part 47.65 (US citizenship) byHans-GunterVosseler to apply for a FAA Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate as Blackbird Aviation, LLC in orderto engage in the purchase and resale ofgeneral aviation aircraft. 

## [\!4

# Uv.2iv <J,h&l**~** 

# hv Hans-GunterVosseler
# C_2015213EN.01005002.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/50

---

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-67/15)

(2015/C 213/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its termination date, when that occurred at the end of the applicant’s pregnancy.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision taken by the AECC of the Commission not to extend the contract, which expired on 31 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision taken by the AECC of the Commission not to extend the contract, which expired on 31 August 2014;

| — | Order to the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order to the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---