alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 19, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10932

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN A. CALDERON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-88-1

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Martin A. Calderon, federal prisoner # 25031-051, appeals

the denial of his postjudgment motion, “Replevin/Sequestration

Return of Creditor’s Secured Property. Release of Debtor’s

Surety, and Vacate Exemption.” In the motion, Calderon referred

to himself as “DEBTOR ROY MARTINEZ/AKA/MARTIN CALDERON” and asked

the district court to vacate “the original action against DEBTOR”

and to “release the DEBTOR’S surety Roy Martinez/aka/ Martin

Calderon from liability.” The district court denied the motion,

finding that it was frivolous. 
No. 06-10932

-2-

Calderon has appealed from the denial of a meaningless

motion. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th

Cir. 1994). No matter how his postconviction motion is

construed, the appeal of its denial is frivolous. See Montgomery

v. United States, 933 F.2d 348, 350 (5th Cir. 1991). The appeal

is therefore dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Calderon is warned that further frivolous filings will

result in the imposition of sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

June 30, 2020

t0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2020

160984

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160984

COA: 346401

Wayne CC: 17

- 007272

- FH

RODNEY BROWN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 26, 2019

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2012319EN.01001803.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

---

Action brought on 26 July 2012 — ZZ v EIT

(Case F-80/12)

2012/C 319/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision assigning the Applicant to a different job position.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision appointing the Appellant as adviser as announced to him on 16 September 2011, and confirmed by his updated job description as communicated to him on 6 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision appointing the Appellant as adviser as announced to him on 16 September 2011, and confirmed by his updated job description as communicated to him on 6 October 2011;

| — | if needed, annul the implicit decision rejecting the Appellant’s complaint, which he lodged on 16 December 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

if needed, annul the implicit decision rejecting the Appellant’s complaint, which he lodged on 16 December 2011;

| — | order the Defendant to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay all costs.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT LUCIA CABRERO, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee. No. 2D20-1207 September 8, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams, Judge. Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Maureen G. Pearcy of Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### David LATIFF v. ELMINI LYMPH, INC., Ceres Hellenic Enterprises, Ltd., and the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association (Bermuda) Ltd.

No. 98-C-2686.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Latiff, David; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA97 1819; Parish of Ascension 23rd Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 54,712.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. would grant the writ.

KIMBALL, J. would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J. not on panel.
No. 96-8009.

#### Nowaczyk *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Amended Employment Agreement with Peter Ferris dated July 24, 2007



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN LYDALL, INC. AND PETER FERRIS 
 Dated February 6, 2006 (sic) 
 This is an Amendment of the Agreement between Lydall, Inc. and
Peter Ferris dated February 6, 2006 (sic). This Amendment is made in consideration of the mutual agreements and promises hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration. 
 All provisions of the Agreements are reaffirmed and will remain in full force and effect except that: 
  

	 	1.	The date of the Agreement shall be corrected to rectify the typographical error in the year listed as 2006 to the correct year when the agreement was made in 2007. 


 

	 	2.	In Section 3 (c), line 1 the phrase “The Company shall pay to the Employee 50% of the sum of...” shall be replaced with “The Company shall pay to the Employee the sum
of...”. 

  

	 	3.	In Section 4 (c), lines 1-2 the phrase “The Company shall pay to the Employee as a severance benefit an amount equal to one (1) times the sum of...” shall be replaced
with “The Company shall pay to the Employee as a severance benefit an amount equal to two (2) times the sum of...” 

  

	 	4.	In Section 3 (d) each of the references to 6 months shall be changed to 12 months. 

  

	 	5.	In Section 4 (e) the reference to 12 months shall be changed to 24 months. 

 Other than the modifications made above, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. 
 This amendment
will be effective as of July 24, 2007. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lydall and Peter Ferris have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed
in duplicate. 
  

					
	LYDALL, INC.	 		 	
			
	/s/    David Freeman	 		 	/s/    Peter Ferris
	David Freeman	 		 	Peter Ferris
	President and Chief Executive Officer	 		 	President, Charter Medical Ltd.
No. 96-7553.

#### Perry *v.*Maryland.

Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014184EN.01000901.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/9

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral — Portugal) — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Ltd, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

(Case C-555/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - ‘Court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Tribunal Arbitral necessário - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Period of validity of a certificate - Maximum period of exclusivity))

2014/C 184/12

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck Canada Inc.

Applicant:

Defendants: Accord Healthcare Ltd, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Arbitral — Interpretation of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Duration of the certificate — Exclusivity period exceeding a maximum of 15 years from the first authorisation to be placed on the market of the medicinal product in question in the European Union

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in conjunction with recital 9 to the same regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the holder of both a patent and a supplementary protection certificate from relying on the entire period of validity of such a certificate, calculated in accordance with Article 13, in a situation where, pursuant to such a period, it would enjoy a period of exclusivity as regards an active ingredient, of more than 15 years from the first authorisation to be placed on the market, in the European Union, of a medicinal product consisting of that active ingredient, or containing it.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18. 1. 2014.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00657-CV

Sue A. Taylor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 2003CV-0194, HONORABLE BRENDA CHAPMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Sue A. Taylor appeals from the judgment entered against her by the trial

court on a bail bond she signed as agent for American Contractors Indemnity Co. d/b/a Texas

Bonding Co. Appellee the State of Texas has filed a letter brief conceding that appellant did not sign

the bond as a surety herself and is not liable on the bond. The State having confessed error, we

reverse the trial court’sjudgment and renderjudgment that the State take nothing in its action against

appellant.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Reversed and Rendered

Filed: May 27, 2004
No. 43244.

#### Protests 939626-G, etc., of Henry W. Peabody & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The evidence showed that the merchandise is over 30 inches in width and not Jacquard figured. The claim at 55 percent under paragraph 1205 was therefore sustained.
# C_2013108EN.01001501.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 January 2013 — France Telecom España, S.A. v Diputación de Barcelona

(Case C-25/13)

2013/C 108/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: France Telecom España, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: Diputación de Barcelona

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May the restriction of the applicability of the fees referred to in Article 13 of the Authorisation Directive (1) to the proprietors of telecommunications networks alone, as held in the judgment of 12 July 2012, (2) be extended to cover any other remuneration or consideration that the owners of public or private property may receive as consideration for the installation on their land or property of facilities associated with telecommunications networks? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the restriction of the applicability of the fees referred to in Article 13 of the Authorisation Directive (1) to the proprietors of telecommunications networks alone, as held in the judgment of 12 July 2012, (2) be extended to cover any other remuneration or consideration that the owners of public or private property may receive as consideration for the installation on their land or property of facilities associated with telecommunications networks?

1

2

| 2. | Is such remuneration, and the question of who is liable to pay it, to be determined by the domestic law of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is such remuneration, and the question of who is liable to pay it, to be determined by the domestic law of the Member State?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

(2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11, not yet published in the ECR.

2

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                         ADVANCED ACCESSORY SYSTEMS, LLC
           EXHIBIT 12.1 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS -
                           FIXED CHARGE COVERAGE RATIO
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002, 2001 AND 2000
                          (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                           DECEMBER 31,
                                                    2002       2001       2000
                                                  --------   --------   --------
<S>                                               <C>        <C>        <C>
Pre-tax income from
  continuing operations.........................  $ 21,837   $  2,996   $  7,515
                                                  --------   --------   --------

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense and amortization
   of debt discount and premium on all
   indebtedness.................................    15,907     17,684     17,950

Rentals(1)......................................     2,933      2,713      2,711
                                                  --------   --------   --------

Total fixed charges.............................    18,840     20,397     20,661
                                                  --------   --------   --------

Earnings before income taxes
  and fixed charges.............................  $ 40,677   $ 23,393   $ 28,176
                                                  ========   ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..............     2.16x      1.15x      1.36x
                                                  ========   ========   ========
</Table>

----------

(1)  Amount included in fixed charges for rentals is considered by management to
     be a reasonable approximation of the interest factor.
### ATM Coastal Topography-Florida 2001: Eastern Panhandle

By: Xan YatesAmar NayegandhiJohn Brock**A. H. SallengerJamie M. BonisteelEmily S. KlippC. Wayne Wright

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds431

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
# C_2012379EN.01002601.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/26

---

Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)

(Case T-445/12)

2012/C 379/45

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Koscher + Würtz GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co (Asperg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 August 2012 in Case R 1675/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 August 2012 in Case R 1675/2011-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Koscher + Würtz GmbH

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: International registration with protection in respect of the European Union of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘KW SURGICAL ELEMENTS’ for goods in Class 10 — International registration with protection in respect of the European Union No W 968 722

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Ka We’ for goods in Class 10

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition refused

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and protection denied in respect of the trade mark registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10390 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

BODRIC K LITTLE, also known as “B

- Shot , ”

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 199

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Bodrick Little has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Little h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10390 Document: 00514727329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2018No. 18

- 10390

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANT ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10390 Document: 00514727329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2018
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Datalink Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles B. Westling,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ CHARLES  B. WESTLING                |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Charles B. Westling                     |
| *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| Dated: March 29,  2007             |

 

----

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Datalink Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory T. Barnum,Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2003, that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ GREGORY  T. BARNUM                                   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory T. Barnum                                        |
| *Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial  Officer* |
| Dated: March 29,  2007                              |

 

----
### TfeiW AUM! ESTMOA K Pfc-HilZ-»M V& X TfiIAL6iU*T ASO- F<n2kS72fJ RECEIVED IU COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS YflflTlcflJ foft RFHfftATAir;. ftfl ftfIV r **)* Atones, MAR 022D1S 73 7U£JU&TICLS OF TH£ feuATOf CAMMfiL /9M/MS AM Acosia, Clerk Neut &>toe£ TuJWtf AUMLIO £sTrtAfl/V. Mtm& in Hi* dwe /w*tdanchfyUto&t &i4Jiks. this ftitfuti f&< ABHMAW6 <&*< Mlf€fM€ fifcrtc^ fr> this Courte*rdthe sfafe
3iifllS0lcTI(3AJ_ A, fi&X. <ws trttb mukitio fhk court a*) »*-fo-|^/ fileden IQi-lSIH. 7tmnrc foikjMM&fP.OA. h)umvU-hthh *Wm da-oi-iy. 3cLu<s Uhr fiAft. MAS 

### nfuscJb^-fk tart&o WHS. oa) WhIS, Mtanrts ckrk muled/Mkc (rfftfus/tl hjkhhme* Wz, inhrstet Courier fro-CX-TO) ,h£chim rece(tf4 iu fMmer oaj 

### 03*5-15. Umj Zcfys k£U mohmSr reUr/Q. 1km>ti* UmL mU 01O oa-^-15^^ in <**. tok rn*il &*£* i*cJU s&w fc4 /a. wi*;\.. StocmtdT of fortes) ° J 

### PeMmerk (ktem^lUttisPMmiKUdtofti A»etoJ»L..Jb tetifchis /&. 

## frmjmdKNlf^m^UM ^ders ifhU PAR ummeikcU- Stix\ 

## tasxr *» ton**** ftotiu <^T to km m torf^ Jl, I 

# a***^ „*. JEWESS" 7^ u fc itetf int.

MS