alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10942 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
FEDERICO DIAZ

- NAVARRO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 44

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Federico Diaz

- Navarro (Diaz) appeals the 36

- month above

- range sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for reentering the United States illegally a fter removal. We affirm.
Di az contends that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying departure provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. The

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 May 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10942 Document: 00512623645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2014No. 13

- 10942
Government argues that the sentence is not a departure from the guidelines sentencing range but is instead a variance above tha t range. Given that Diaz’s “sentence was not unreasonable,” as explained below, we need not decide whether it was authorized by the Guidelines or was a “non

- Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Jones
, 444 F.3d 430, 441 (5th Cir. 2006).
The characteri zation of a sentence is irrelevant “if the sentence imposed was reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors.” United States v. Brantley , 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Jones , 444 F.3d at 441)

. The district court considered the advisory guideline range and all the factors mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court was of the opinion that a sentence above the guidelines range was warranted based on the following: Diaz’s history and characteristi cs and the nature and circumstances of the offense ; the need for the sentence to reflect the offense’s seriousness, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment ; and the need to protect the public from recidivism by Diaz. “ The record

. . . dem onstrates the reasonableness of the district court ’ s conclusions .” Brantley , 537 F.3d at 349. The offense of conviction wa s the type that Diaz had committed before and for which he had been punished briefly before without apparent deterrent effect , and h is history of other crimes supported a conclusion that there was a risk of
recidivism . Diaz thus exhibited personal characteristics indicating “that a long incarceration period was required to provide just punishment, to ensure adequate deterrence, and to protect the public.” Brantley , 537 F.3d at 350. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-10942 Document: 00512623645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2014
# C_2022128EN.01000501.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — L.G. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

(Case C-718/21)

(2022/C 128/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: L.G.

Other party to the proceedings: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude a provision of national law such as the first sentence of Article 69(1b) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the System of Ordinary Courts; Dz, U. of 2020, item 2072), which makes the effectiveness of a declaration by a judge of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age subject to the consent of another body? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude a provision of national law such as the first sentence of Article 69(1b) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the System of Ordinary Courts; Dz, U. of 2020, item 2072), which makes the effectiveness of a declaration by a judge of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age subject to the consent of another body?

| 2. | Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude the adoption of an interpretation of a national provision under which a judge’s belated declaration of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age is ineffective, irrespective of the reason for the failure to observe the time limit and the significance of that failure for the proceedings concerning consent to his or her continuing to hold a judicial office? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude the adoption of an interpretation of a national provision under which a judge’s belated declaration of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age is ineffective, irrespective of the reason for the failure to observe the time limit and the significance of that failure for the proceedings concerning consent to his or her continuing to hold a judicial office?

---
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned, Colman Cheng, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA NUTRIFRUIT GROUP LIMITED (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 29th day of June, 2010.

/s/ Colman ChengColman Cheng 
Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Nutrifruit Group Limited and will be retained by China Nutrifruit Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### BOWLER *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 1,

September Term, 1962 (Adv.).]

*Decided May 18, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and HammondJ Prescott, Horney, Marbury and SybERT, JJ.

*663Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated by Judge Harlan for dismissing the petition, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
Exhibit 32.1  CEO Certification

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Electronic Systems Technology Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tom L. Kirchner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ T. L. KIRCHNER
Tom L. Kirchner                                                                        
Chief Executive Officer                                                               
Date:  March 24, 2009
#### John Elliot PANZAVECCHIA v. STATE of Florida, County of Dade.

No. 38692.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 289.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1093 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1093

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the special rule 
for treatment of foreign trade income of a FSC attributable to military 
                               property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 10, 1993

Mr. Durenberger (for himself, Mr. Danforth, and Mr. Cochran) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the special rule 
for treatment of foreign trade income of a FSC attributable to military 
                               property.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR FOREIGN TRADE INCOME OF A FSC 
              ATTRIBUTABLE TO MILITARY PROPERTY.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 923(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(defining exempt foreign trade income) is amended by striking paragraph 
(5) and by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to transactions occurring after December 31, 1993, in taxable 
years ending after such date.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2021028EN.01006401.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/64

---

Action brought on 30 November 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)

(Case T-708/20)

(2021/C 28/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark e.Gear — Application for registration No 18 065 340

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2020 in Case R 561/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries
as of 3-31-99 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations
for the three months ended 3-31-99, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          51,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,700
<PP&E>                                       2,006,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 416,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,977,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,400
<BONDS>                                        595,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,300
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,060,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,977,600
<SALES>                                            800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,000
<CGS>                                            1,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1 - Form 8-K dated March 3, 1997

              UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                          WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549


                                   FORM 8-K



                                CURRENT REPORT
   Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  


                       Date of Report:  March 3, 1997




                     ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INC.
                        (A Washington Corporation)

                       Commission File no. 2-92949-S
                 IRS Employer Identification no. 91-1238077

                             415 N. Quay St. #4
                            Kennewick  WA  99336
                   (Address of principal executive offices)


  Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (509) 735-9092



























<PAGE>
ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS

On March 3, 1997, the Company was notified that Arthur Leighton, a director
of the Company, was, as an innocent bystander, wounded in a shooting
incident near his home, during the weekend of March 2, 1997. At the time of
this filing Mr. Leighton's condition is unknown.






















































<PAGE>
                                  SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.


/s/ T. L. KIRCHNER    

By: T.L. Kirchner
President
Date: March 7, 1997
#### Robert BELL, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

Robert Bell, Jr., in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and Freddie William Tagtmeier, Jr., Appellants, v. Russell Gene SHREWSBURY, Appellee.

No. 67-539.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 19, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2022095EN.01003301.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE)

(Case T-194/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International figurative registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HYALOSTEL ONE - Earlier EU word mark HYALISTIL and earlier figurative mark HyalOne - Earlier international word mark HYALO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 95/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H.P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stelis Biopharma Ltd (Karnataka, India)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2021 (Case R 831/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Fidia Farmaceutici and Stelis Biopharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 January 2021 (Case R 831/2020-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 January 2021 (Case R 831/2020-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fidia farmaceutici SpA in connection with the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fidia farmaceutici SpA in connection with the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT LEE HALL, III , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 888

[June 7, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Lawrence M. Mirman

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 432013CF000875A, 432013CF000951A and 432013CF000953A

.
Robert Lee Hall, III, Jasper, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

T

AYLOR , D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE , JJ. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2022148EN.01002501.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/25

---

Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

(Case T-459/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Sunwhite - Earlier national figurative mark Sunwhite - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 148/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Hamel and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and C. Böhmer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 (Case R 2465/2020 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ricegrowers and Calrose Rice.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Calrose Rice shall pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calrose Rice shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
# C_2021289EN.01002601.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

(Case C-250/21)

(2021/C 289/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption which that provision provides for in respect of transactions concerning the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit is applicable to the subparticipation agreement described in the main proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
Calendar No. 114

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 122

[Report No. 103–73]

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the

vessel Kalena.

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Reported with an amendment
II

Calendar No. 114

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 122

[Report No. 103–73]

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Reported by Mr. HOLLINGS, with an amendment

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

Kalena.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

5 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer6 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica-
2

•S 122 RS

1 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

2 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

3 for the vessel Kalena, United States official number HA–

4 1923E. State of Hawaii registration number HA 1923 E.
No. 10928.

#### The Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. *v.*Gill.

Decided October 13, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Maxzvell & Ramsey,*for plaintiff in-error.

*Mr. Joseph T. Harrison,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew and Spear, J'J., concur.