alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016136EN.01003401.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads and Others)

(Joined Cases T-279/15 to T-282/15) (1)

1

((Community design - Community design representing tyre treads and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels - Failure to apply for renewal of the design and cancellation of the design upon expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum and application for renewal of the design))

(2016/C 136/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Four actions brought against the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 (Cases R 1285/2014-3 and R 1286/2014-3) and of 11 February 2015 (Cases R 1287/2014-3 and R 1288/2014-3) relating to applications for retitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4925

JORGE MACEDO-MOLINA, a/k/a Guijul

Siriguanico,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-79)

Submitted: July 3, 2001

Decided: July 20, 2001

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney (Interim), Anne

M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott L. Wilkinson,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jorge Macedo-Molina pled guilty to one count of re-entry by a

deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326 (West 1999 & Supp.

2000). The district court found Macedo-Molina had been convicted of

two prior aggravated felonies, making the statutory maximum sentence a twenty-year term of imprisonment. See 8 U.S.C.A. §

1326(b)(2). Macedo-Molina argues he should have been sentenced

under the provisions of § 1326(a), which provides a maximum sentence of two years, because the Government did not charge a violation

of § 1326(b)(2) in the indictment. We affirm. 

Because the Supreme Court has held § 1326(b)(2) sets forth a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense, this claim is without merit. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998). Contrary to Macedo-Molina’s assertions, we find

Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000) (finding Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001); United States v. Gatewood, 230 F.3d 186, 192 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that, despite

Apprendi, Almendarez-Torres remains the law); see also Columbia

Union Coll. v. Clarke, 159 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 1998) (stating that

lower courts should not presume the Supreme Court has overruled

one of its cases by implication; courts must follow case law that

directly controls unless clearly overruled by subsequent Supreme

Court case).

Consequently, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. MACEDO-MOLINA
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel De La TORRE-ORTEGA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-36039.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*50Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Michael Joseph Fica, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Manuel De La Torre-Ortega, California City, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Manuel De La TorreOrtega appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

Ortega contends that his sentence violates equal protection because, as a result of his deportation status, he is unable to participate in a variety of prison programs available to American citizens. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the relevant portion of the district court’s March 26, 2004, order.

Ortega next contends that his attorney provided constitutionally deficient representation by failing to seek a downward departure based upon the different treatment he would receive in prison as a result of his status as an alien subject to deportation. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, the departure based on alienage that Ortega’s counsel failed to pursue was, as an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) departure, purely discretionary. The decision to grant or to deny such a reduction, had counsel made the request, was entirely within the discretion of the court. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that, even assuming counsel’s failure to request the departure satisfied the first prong of *Strickland,*Ortega is unable to show that there is a “reasonable probability, that but for” the error, the result would have been different. *Strickland,*466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             382
<SECURITIES>                                     7,723
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                        46
<INVENTORY>                                      4,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,665
<PP&E>                                           3,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,272
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,521
<SALES>                                          4,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,121
<CGS>                                            1,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (107)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,919)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 336 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 336

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the people of the United States have a sincere appreciation and respect 
        for members of the Armed Forces who suffered disabling wounds while 
        serving in the United States military;
Whereas there are approximately 2,800,000 veterans receiving benefits from the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs for disabilities incurred while defending 
        our Nation;
Whereas the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in 30,000 
        disabled American veterans as a direct result of combat operations, and 
        even more so from conditions simulating war, instrumentalities of war, 
        and hazardous duty in combat-related training;
Whereas families throughout every State in America have been affected by loved 
        ones returning disabled from their service to their Nation;
Whereas the American public supports the brave men and women who have defended 
        the freedom of all in America;
Whereas America owes its very integrity to her sons and daughters in uniform, 
        who risk the most for the least, and who epitomize the extraordinary 
        meaning of service, sacrifice, and, most importantly, freedom; and
Whereas Americans should remember and honor our men and women in uniform who 
        incurred disabilities while defending our Nation with a Disabled 
        American Veterans Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) recognizes the great sacrifices made by disabled 
        veterans and their families;
            (2) calls on the people of the United States to honor all 
        disabled American veterans and the freedom for which they 
        sacrificed;
            (3) encourages local, State, and national organizations and 
        governmental institutions to participate in the effort to honor 
        the sacrifices of America's disabled veterans; and
            (4) supports the goals and ideals of Disabled American 
        Veterans Week.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 336

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Honoring the sacrifices and contributions made by disabled American 
                               veterans.
```
#### Robert Wayne STANLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Reginald WEISNER, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6457.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Robert Wayne Stanley, Appellant pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Robert Wayne Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254*545(2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stanley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stanley’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We grant Stanley’s motion to amend his informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

J.P.Morgan Chase CommercialMortgage Securities Corp.

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

 

Re:         Annual Statement of Compliance for Palisades Center Trust 2016-PLSD CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-PLSD

 

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of April 29, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)          A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# C_2016048EN.01005001.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)

(Case T-128/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD - Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Freyburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Lewis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Alberto Ruiz Moncayo (Entrena, Spain) (represented by E. Valentín Prades, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 (Case R 1012/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH and Alberto Ruiz Moncayo.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

---
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5786] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Desiderio da Settignana: Sculptor of Renaissance Florence”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about July 1, 2007, until on or about October 8, 2007, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register.**

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                     

Date: April 26, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E7-8470 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
No. 55492.

#### Owesen & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 165703-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 8383)

Entry No. 536.

#### Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. *v.*United States

(Decided January 12, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*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:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The market value or the price at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> *436Bottles of Champagne French francs per case

> 26-ounce 5513

> 52-ounce 5816

> 104-ounce 5786

> 6}4-ounce 5529

> All plus 1.01%

> 2) Each of the foregoing values includes the appraised value of the bottles.

> 3) There was no higher export value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> 4) The appeal herein is limited to the foregoing items and the case is hereby submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> Bottles of champagne French francs per case

> 26-ounce 5513

> 52-ounce 5816

> 104-ounce 5786

> 6^-ounce 5529

> All plus 1.01% Each of the foregoing values includes the appraised value of the bottles.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.