alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kedrick D. CONERLY, Plaintiff, v. Allen J. ORDENEAUX, Individually and in His Official Capacity; Mitch Arnold, Individually and In His Official Capacity; City of Hammond, as His State Law Claim Employer, Defendants-Appellees, v. J. Courtney Wilson, Movant-Appellant.

No. 04-31193.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 22, 2005.

*576J. Courtney Wilson, Metairie, LA, pro se.

Andre Gerard Coudrain, Cashe, Lewis, Coudrain *&*Sandage, Hammond, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

J. Courtney Wilson, attorney for plaintiff Kedrick D. Conerly in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, seeks to appeal the sanctions order issued following his failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference and the magistrate judge’s determination that he had not adequately complied with her resulting order requiring him to write a letter of apology to opposing counsel.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion, if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). The sanctions order being appealed is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as it did not end the litigation on the merits. *See Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio,*527 U.S. 198, 204, 119 S.Ct. 1915, 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999). Contrary to Wilson’s assertion, the order is not an immediately appealable civil contempt order. *See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell,*512 U.S. 821, 827-28, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994). The order imposing sanctions against Wilson as an attorney, whether imposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) or the court’s inherent power, is not an immediately appealable collateral order. *See Cunningham,*527 *577U.S. at 206-10, 119 S.Ct. 1915; *Williams v. Midwest Employers Cas. Co.,*243 F.3d 208, 209-10 (5th Cir.2001); *Click v. Abilene Nat'l Bank,*822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                        (52,628)
<SECURITIES>                                   812,851
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    500,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,637,755
<PP&E>                                       7,747,947
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,529,687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,805,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,938,901
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,194
<COMMON>                                        53,138
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,001,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,805,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,714,274
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,158,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               563,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             422,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (767,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (767,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (767,399)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (767,399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
No. 45205.

#### Protests 915663-G, etc., of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers in chief value of decorated glass similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was therefore sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Distinguishing acts of war in cyberspace:assessment criteria, policy considerations, and response implications**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 101.146:C 99/9
Item Number:0307-A-31 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001081808
 
October 4, 2018
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 25 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the United States has a quantity of renewable energy resources that is sufficient to supply a significant 

portion of the energy needs of the United States; 

Whereas the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the 

United States can help ensure a sustainable domestic energy system; 
2 

•HCON 25 EH 

Whereas accelerated development and use of renewable energy technologies provide numerous benefits to the 

United States, including improved national security, improved balance of payments, healthier rural economies, 

improved environmental quality, and abundant, reliable, 

and affordable energy for all citizens of the United 

States; 

Whereas the production of transportation fuels from renewable energy would help the United States meet rapidly 

growing domestic and global energy demands, reduce the 

dependence of the United States on energy imported 

from volatile regions of the world that are politically unstable, stabilize the cost and availability of energy, and 

safeguard the economy and security of the United States; 

Whereas increased energy production from domestic renewable resources would attract substantial new investments 

in energy infrastructure, create economic growth, develop 

new jobs for the citizens of the United States, and increase the income for farm, ranch, and forestry jobs in 

the rural regions of the United States; 

Whereas increased use of renewable energy is practical and 

can be cost effective with the implementation of supportive policies and proper incentives to stimulate markets and infrastructure; and 

Whereas public policies aimed at enhancing renewable energy 

production and accelerating technological improvements 

will further reduce energy costs over time and increase 

market demand: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that it is 

3 the goal of the United States that, not later than January 
3 

•HCON 25 EH 

1 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of 

2 the United States should provide from renewable resources 

3 not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in 

4 the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, 

5 and affordable food, feed, and fiber. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 25 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal 

able food, feed, and fiber. continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordtotal energy consumed in the United States and newable resources not less than 25 percent of the land of the United States should provide from re1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working of the United States that, not later than January
January 19, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption Application No. FAA-2015-0568-0001 filed

pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-

0568.

Dear Sir or Madam;

DPR Construction has filed an application for Exemption numbered FAA2015-0568-0001 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial imaging to 

monitor and ensure safety of secured and controlled environmental construction 

sites. DPR hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional 

model of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of 

the Exemption. 

DPR wishes to operate the 3DR Aero M, 3DR Iris, 3DR Iris +, 3DR Solo, DJI 

Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2, and DJI Phantom 3 UAS under the same terms and 

conditions contained in the Exemption. All operations of the additional UAS will be 

in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning 

this request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours,

Atul Khanzode

DPR Construction
H. Con. Res. 307 Agreed to June 20, 2008 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Whereas Members’ Congressional papers (including papers of Delegates and Resident Commissioners to the Congress) serve as 

indispensable sources for the study of American representative 

democracy; 

Whereas these papers document vital national, regional, and local 

public policy issues; 

Whereas these papers are crucial to the public’s understanding 

of the role of Congress in making the Nation’s laws and 

responding to the needs of its citizens; 

Whereas because these papers serve as essential primary sources 

for the history of Congress, the study of these papers will illuminate the careers of individual Members; 

Whereas by custom, these papers are considered the personal property of the Member who receives and creates them, and it is 

therefore the Member who is responsible to decide on their ultimate disposition; and 

Whereas resources are available through the Office of the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate 

to assist Members with the professional and cost-effective 

management and preservation of these papers: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

(1) Members’ Congressional papers (including papers of 

Delegates and Resident Commissioners to the Congress) should 

be properly maintained; 

(2) each Member of Congress should take all necessary 

measures to manage and preserve the Member’s own Congressional papers; and 

(3) each Member of Congress should be encouraged to 

arrange for the deposit or donation of the Member’s own noncurrent Congressional papers with a research institution that is 

properly equipped to care for them, and to make these papers 

available for educational purposes at a time the Member considers appropriate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-75,568-08

EX PARTE RICARDO SANCHEZ ENRIQUEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2008-1926-C2C IN THE 54 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM MCLENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of indecency with a child by contact and was

sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on each count. Applicant filed this application for writ of habeas

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

This Court initially received this application on July 1, 2020, and dismissed it as subsequent

on August 19, 2020. TEX. R. APP. P. 73.1(d). The Court has since determined that the application

was not barred under Article 11.07, § 4. We now withdraw our order of August 19, 2020, and

reconsider this application on our own motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 79.2(d).

This Court has undertaken an independent review of all the evidence and pleadings in the
2

record. Therefore, based on the trial court’s findings and conclusions and this Court’s independent

review of the entire record, we deny the application on the merits.

Filed: October 7, 2020

Do not publish
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136545 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARY VANVORST,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136545 

 COA: 278995 

WCAC: 06-000129 

MAXITROL COMPANY and COMMERCE 

& INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS L. SUTHERLAND AND LUCINDA S. SUTHERLAND,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 232 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of April, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2015381EN.01004101.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/41

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T-66/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Action for failure to act - Council’s position - Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 381/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg (South Africa) (represented by: E. Moutet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Declare, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, that the Council unlawfully refrained from re-examining its decision to include the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 316 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.316
                                                Agreed to March 14, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, March 
13, 2008, or Friday, March 14, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 31, 2008, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses 
or adjourns on any day from Thursday, March 13, 2008, through Friday, 
March 28, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until noon on Monday, March 31, 2008, or such other time on 
that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or 
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
No. 56663.

protests 153424-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### City of Paris Dry Goods Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in0Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
June 6, 1957

Reap. Dec. 9004.

#### Bunge *Corporation*v. *United States.*

Entered at Houston, Tex. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Aldo MEZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-41157.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 20, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*627trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Mark Michael Dowd, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, TX, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Aurora Ruth Bearse, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.*

*

 This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

PER CURIAM: **

This court affirmed the sentence of Luis Aldo Meza. *United States v. Meza,*No. 02-41157 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2003) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *Meza v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 984, 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005). This court requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of *Booker.*

Meza contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines prohibited by *Booker.*This court will not consider a Booker-related challenge raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari absent extraordinary circumstances. *United States v. Taylor,*409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.2005). Meza identifies “no evidence in the record suggesting that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines system.” *Id.*(citing *United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez,*405 F.3d 260, 261 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(June 27, 2005) (No. 05-5220); *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir.), *petition for cert. filed*(March 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517)).

Meza argues that he need not show prejudice because the error was structural. This court has recently held otherwise. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005). He also argues that this court wrongly decided *Mares;*this argument is unavailing. *See United States v. Ruff,*984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir.1993). Meza raises this latter argument to preserve it for possible further review.

Because Meza has not demonstrated even plain error, “it is obvious that the much more demanding standard for extraordinary circumstances, warranting review of an issue raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” *See Taylor,*409 F.3d at 677.

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s *Booker*decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we therefore reinstate our judgment affirming Meza’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdatedasof May 1, 2016, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesCorp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association,as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, andPentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset RepresentationsReviewer, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2016-C2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

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