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

No. 21

- 50968 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Daniel Manriquez**

**- Nunez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 405

- 1

Before **King, Costa,**  and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Daniel Manriquez

- Nunez a ppeals the sentence imposed after h is guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)

. For the first time on appeal, he challenges the condition of his supervised release which states that, if the probation officer

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 June 23, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50968 Document: 00516368362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2022No. 21

- 50968

2 determines that Manriquez

- Nunez presents a risk to another person, the probation officer may require Manriquez

- Nunez to notify the person of that risk and may c ontact the person to confirm that notification occurred. He contends that the condition constitutes an impermissible delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance in which it contends that the sole issue on appeal is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mejia

- Banegas , 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022). In Mejia

- Banegas , we rejected the specific argument that Manriquez

Nunez raises regarding the risk

- notification c ondition. See i d

. at 451

- 52. Accordingly, the Government is correct that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50968 Document: 00516368362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2022
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 8-24-11 Meeting with American Petrol eum Institute and EPA on the 2011 NHSM
Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On August 24, 2011, EPA met with American Petroleum Institute members to discuss their
issues and concerns with the final rule enti tled, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste,” which was publ ished in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is referred to as the 2011 NHSM Final Rule.

During that meeting, members from the American Petroleum Institute expressed concerns with
how the use of used oil woul d be implemented under the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. EPA asked clarifying questions regarding the information presented.

Expected Meeting Attendees

Members from American Petroleum Institute

EPA Invitees: Chair, Jim Berlow Alan Carpien
Kenneth Dixon George Faison
Mimi Guernica
Tab Tesnau
Marc Thomas
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ARLISTER SHERRON RUSH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2991

[ December 5, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Sherri L. Collins

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CF005691AXXXWB

.

Arlister S. Rush, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

M AY

, G ERBER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit32.2**

** **

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Forrest Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 12, 2003 | /s/Forrest  Jordan       |   |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                           | Forrest  Jordan          |
|                           | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2013026EN.01002201.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria), lodged on 24 October 2012 — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH and TUI Österreich GmbH

(Case C-478/12)

2013/C 26/40

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Feldkirch

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic

Appellants:

Respondents: lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) which confers jurisdiction on the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the other party (here, a travel
  agent
  having its seat abroad) has recourse to a contracting partner (here, a travel
  operator
  having its seat in the home country), Article 16(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 is, for the purpose of proceedings brought against those two parties, also applicable to the contracting partner in the home country?

1

agent

operator

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMEDICS
INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                          37,413
<SECURITIES>                                    77,916
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,244
<INVENTORY>                                     47,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,768
<PP&E>                                          40,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 386,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,428
<BONDS>                                         45,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,399
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   386,249
<SALES>                                        208,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,041
<CGS>                                          110,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   689
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,781
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,174
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        


</TABLE>
No. 54383.

#### Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co. *v.*United States,

protests 130378-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar *in*all material respects to the rough castings of iron the subject of *United States*v. *The Singer Manufacturing Company*(37 C. C. P. A. 104, C. A. D. 427), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2016136EN.01002501.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Kühne + Nagel International and Others v European Commission

(Case T-254/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final prices - Whether trade between Member States affected - Errors of assessment - Duration of the infringement - Amount of the fine - Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Rights of the defence))

(2016/C 136/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kühne + Nagel International AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland), Kühne + Nagel Management AG (Feusisberg), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. Klöppner and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, N. von Lingen and G. Meessen, and subsequently by C. Hödlmayr, G. Meessen and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
#### Thomas Wright, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Adam Antrim, defendant in error.

*Error to Henry.*

The question of costs upon granting a new trial, is left io the discretion of the District Court.

This was an action of sssumpsit brought by Wright against Antrim, in the District Court of Henry county.

The point saved for the consideration of the Supreme Court, is contained in the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Errors assigned:

1. The court erred in rendering up judgment for costs against Wright at the September term, 1842, which costs were made at the March term, 1842.

2. The court erred in giving costs against the plaintiff.

J. C. Hall, for plaintiff in error:

At the March term of the court, 1842, there was a trial in this case and a verdict for the defendant. Thereupon, on motion of the plaintiff the verdict was set aside, and a new trial granted. No order whatever was made as to costs, and no condition attached to the granting of the new trial. It appears to be unconditional. At the September term 1842, the second trial was had, apd verdict fur the plaintiff. Wheie-upon the court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff for the costs of the. March term.

Costs follow a recovery as a right, not at the discretion of the court. True, the court may punish a party with costs if they do wrong, may relieve them upon conditions, but the court cannot reinstate a party, and afler a parly has availed himself of the favor, fix the terms and price of that favor. If the court had granted the new trial, and made it upon condition of paying costs, it would have been right. Then the party could have relied upon his bill of exceptions, and appealed to the Supreme Court, or taken the new trial upon the terms offered. He was not bound to take the new trial if the terms did not suit him.— Then with what kind of right can the court, after he has received it *259without condition, decide upon the condition and fix the price of the favor.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The question of costs upon granting a new trial, is left to the discretion of the District Court. We do not feel disposed to interfere with that discretion, even in the present instance, although the costs were awarded at a subsequent term, against the party obtaining a new trial. The circumstances might have been such as to justify the court in such a case, and such will be presumed to have been the fact, undei the present circumstances of this case.

Judgment affirmed.
Before the Second Division,

June 17, 1944

No. 49515.

#### Protests 81571-K, etc., of Pacific Dry Goods Co. (San Francisco)

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of woven silk mufflers similar to those involved in Abstract 44055, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

October 30, 1941

No. 46517.

#### Protest 838938-G of Sebastian Dienfang (New York).

Opinion by

Kíncheloe, J.

The uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff together with the official sample of the merchandise was held sufficient to show that the drawing paper in question was not embossed, decorated, ruled, bordered, printed, or lined. The plaintiff’s claim was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2031 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2031

 To make funds available for the American centrifuge project research, 
  development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy, 
                            with an offset.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 17, 2011

    Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make funds available for the American centrifuge project research, 
  development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy, 
                            with an offset.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PROJECT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
              DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy is authorized to make 
$150,000,000 available to carry out the American centrifuge project 
research, development, and demonstration program of the Department of 
Energy, to remain available until expended, of which--
            (1) $44,000,000 shall be derived from proceeds from the 
        disposition of reenriched uranium from existing uranium owned 
        by the Department of Energy; and
            (2) $106,000,000 shall be derived from unobligated balances 
        of funds made available to carry out other programs and 
        activities of the Department.
    (b) Reports.--The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committee 
on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives quarterly reports on the progress of the program 
described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
No. 45336.

#### Protests 972701-G, etc., of Hudson Steel & Tube Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
#### EMERALD COAST HOUSING, d/b/a, Royale Apartments, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Appellee.

No. 99-0483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1999.

Alice H. Murray of Robison R. Harrell & Associates, Shalimar, for appellant.

Gail S. Hoge, Senior Attorney, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We elect to treat appellee’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction as a confession of error. The final order is hereby reversed *604and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

JOANOS, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 28, 2019

No. 04-19-00182-CV

Crystal SMITH,

Appellant

v.

Joseph HICKMAN,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI19228

Honorable Solomon Casseb III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 9, 2019, appellee filed a Motion to Refer to Alternative Dispute Resolution and 

Stay the Appeal. In an order dated July 24, 2019, we ordered appellant to file a response to 

appellee’s motion. On August 20, 2019, appellant filed a response in which appellant objects to 

appellee’s motion.

Appellee’s Motion to Refer to Alternative Dispute Resolution is DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 28th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2084 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2084

  To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish accelerated 
licensing procedures to assist veterans to acquire commercial driver's 
                   licenses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2012

  Ms. Snowe (for herself and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish accelerated 
licensing procedures to assist veterans to acquire commercial driver's 
                   licenses, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROGRAM TO ASSIST VETERANS TO ACQUIRE COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S 
              LICENSES.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Commercial driver's license.--The term ``commercial 
        driver's license'' has the meaning given that term in section 
        31301 of title 49, United States Code.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given that 
        term in such section.
            (3) Veteran.--The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
    (b) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Defense and in cooperation with the States, shall 
establish accelerated licensing procedures to assist veterans to 
acquire commercial driver's licenses.
    (c) Accelerated Licensing Procedures.--The procedures established 
under subsection (b) shall be designed to be applicable to any veteran 
who--
            (1) is attempting to acquire a commercial driver's license; 
        and
            (2) obtained, during military service, driving experience 
        that, in the determination of the Secretary of Transportation, 
        makes the use of accelerated licensing procedures appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
No. 46516.

#### Petition 6171-R of Zellerbach Paper Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared from the testimony that because of disagreement the petitioner was advised by counsel to make a test case. The court was satisfied that the undervaluation was the result of an honest dispute between the importer and the appraising officers, and that the petitioner and its officers acted without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 47717.

#### Protests 832579-G, etc., of Lorraine Fibre Mills et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9097)

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5558, etc.

(Decided March 14, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision were called for hearing, and the cases were consequently ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any ease shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.