alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Martinez, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 33]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered July 6, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 121/2 to 25 years and 71/2 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to effective appellate review due to an inadequate record is without merit. Defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the failure to record certain questioning by the prosecutor and defense counsel during the jury voir dire, which portion of the voir dire defendant did not request be recorded *(People v Yanowitch,*227 AD2d 225, *lv denied*88 NY2d 997). Further, the available record is sufficient to confirm that the trial court appropriately denied defendant’s challenges for cause against two venirepersons subsequently challenged peremptorily by defendant (see, *People v Harrison,*85 NY2d 794, 796). In this connection, we note that because defendant had not exercised all of his peremptory challenges by the completion of jury selection, even an erroneous ruling denying a challenge for cause would not constitute reversible error *(People v Brown,*202 AD2d 266, *lv denied*83 NY2d 964).

The trial court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence of an uncharged crime, shown by the People by clear and convincing evidence to share the unique modus operandi of the crimes charged herein and defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crime *(see, People v Robinson,*68 NY2d 541). In light of defendant’s extensive cross-examination in connection with the uncharged crime, as well as the trial court’s explicit instructions to the jury regarding the limited purpose of the evidence in question, and the fact that defendant was *218acquitted of one of the charged robberies, we reject defendant’s claim of undue prejudice based on the scope of the uncharged crime evidence presented.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Tom, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50077

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARS NELSON BORNKESSEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-94-CR-77

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lars Nelson Bornkessel was convicted by a jury for wire

fraud. Bornkessel did not raise the issue concerning the

district court’s enhancement for finding that he was a manager on

his first appeal and it will not be considered on this second

appeal. See Burroughs v. FFP Operatiing Partners, 70 F.3d 31, 33

(5th Cir. 1996); Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 (5th Cir.

1996). The district court did not err in finding that Bornkessel
No. 96-50077

- 2 -

was responsible for $381,937.96 in losses as assistant manager at

Nationwide. See United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir.

1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

ordering restitution. See United States v. Ryan, 874 F.2d 1052,

1054 (5th Cir. 1989). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2023155EN.01002101.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Francoise Grossetête v European Parliament

(Case C-714/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme - Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights - Plea of illegality - Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament - Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Legal certainty)

(2023/C 155/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Francoise Grossetête (represented by: E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, F. Doumont, avocat, J. Martínez Gimeno and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker, N. Görlitz and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Françoise Grossetête to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Françoise Grossetête to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |   |
| March 12, 2008                                                                 |   |
#### Herbert FATRELL, Jr. v. BANK OF PALM BEACH AND TRUST CO.

No. 38726.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### Dr. Paul F. Rosenstein and Wanda Rosenstein, h/w as parents and natural guardians of Michelle Karin Rosenstein, Appellants, *v.*The North Penn School District, John G. Skibbe, Robert A. DiDomizio, John H. Bell, Joan K. Gauker, Mary E. Gehman, S. Gregory Golazeski, Robert L. Kagler, Roy S. Myers and Carl D. Rohrbach, individually and severally as members of the North Penn School District Board of School Directors, W. J. Jacobs, John I. Weierman, Dr. Leonard A. Mollenkof and Dr. William D. Westcott, Appellees.

Argued April 4, 1975,

before Judges CRUMLISH, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.

*Stephen R. Signore, Jr.,*with him *McCarthy, King, Narducci & Signore,*for appellants.

*Charles Potash,*with him *Raymond Pearlstine,*and *Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone, Craig & Garrity,*for appellees.

May 28, 1975:

Per Curiam

Opinion,

We have carefully read the record and considered the contentions advanced by Dr. Paul F. Rosenstein and Wanda Rosenstein, husband and wife, as parents and *324natural guardians of Michelle Karin Rosenstein, appellants here. We conclude that the court below not only rendered the correct decision but adequately stated the reasons for that decision in its opinion. Accordingly, we hereby affirm on the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Lowe for the court below which is reported at 99 Mont. Co. L.R. 1 (1975).

Order affirmed.
H. Res. 537

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 22, 1994.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury

Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive

Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other

purposes. All points of order against the conference report

and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
IV

House Calendar No. 240

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 564

[Report No. 103–829]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and implement

the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of multilateral

trade negotiations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and implement the trade agreements concluded

in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and implement

6 the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of

7 multilateral trade negotiations. The first reading of the
2

HRES 564 RH

1 bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

2 the bill and against its consideration are waived. General

3 debate shall proceed without intervening motion, shall be

4 confined to the bill, and shall not exceed four hours equally

5 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi6 nority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

7 Pursuant to section 151(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, after

8 general debate the Committee shall rise and report the bill

9 to the House. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade

10 Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as

11 ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening

12 motion.

House Calendar No. 240

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 564

[Report No. 103–829]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5110)

trade negotiations.concluded in the Uruguay Round of multilateralto approve and implement the trade agreements

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 93 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 93

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 18, 1993.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committees:
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs: Bernie Sanders, Vermont.
    Committee on Government Operations: Bernie Sanders, Vermont.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0672 IN THE MATTER OF P.S., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 27, 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0672
# C_2021401EN.01000502.xml

| 4.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 401/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 401/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen

(Case C-431/21)

(2021/C 401/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremen

Question referred

Must Article 43 of the EC Treaty and Article 49 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment (or, respectively, Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 56 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom to provide services), be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in situations involving transactions with a foreign element, the taxpayer must keep records on the nature and content of his or her business relations with related parties, including the economic and legal bases for an arm’s length agreement on prices and other terms and conditions with the related parties, and under which, where the taxpayer fails to submit those records when requested to do so by the tax authority, or where the records submitted are fundamentally unusable, not only is there a rebuttable presumption that his or her income subject to tax domestically, which such records serve to determine, is higher than the income that he or she has declared, and, if in such cases the tax authority is required to make an estimate and such income can be determined only within a certain range, in particular only on the basis of price bands, the upper value of that range may be taken as the basis to the detriment of the taxpayer, but, in addition, a surcharge is to be imposed which is at least 5 per cent and at most 10 per cent of the excess income determined, but not less than EUR 5 000, and which, in the event that usable records are submitted late, is up to EUR 1 000 000, but not less than EUR 100 for each full day of delay, whereby the imposition of a surcharge is to be waived only if the non-compliance with the record-keeping obligations appears to be excusable or if any fault involved is only minor?

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14712]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1924-000]


Sanford Energy Associates, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Sanford Energy Associates, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 23, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03454651404c6d6f6a6d66507673736c717743656671602d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="470102150408292b2e292214323737283533072122352469202831">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14712 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELODIE DePIERRO

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION METRO, INC.; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 16541

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv

- 01481

- GMN

- VCF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Melodie DePierro appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleg ing a First Amendment claim arising out of union

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). DePierro’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 

# FILED

AUG 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 165 41

membership dues paid to Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc.

(“union”) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo a

district court’s dismissal for failure to state a clai m. Puri v. Khalsa , 844 F.3d

1152, 1157 (9 th Cir. 2017)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed DePierro’s First Amendment claim for

retrospective relief because the deduction of union membership dues arose from a

private membership agreement be tween union and employee , and “private dues

agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional scrutiny.”

Belgau v. Inslee , 975 F.3d 940, 946

- 49 ( 9 th Cir. 2020 )

, cert. denied 141 S. Ct.

2795 (2021) (discussing state action) ; see id

. at 950

- 52 (concluding that the

Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County &

Municipal Employees, Council 31 , 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), did not extend a First

Amendment right to avoid supporting the union and paying union dues t hat were

agreed upon under voluntarily entered membership agreements) ; Knutson v. Sirius

XM Radio Inc. , 771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing mutual assent).

DePierro’s claim for prospective relief is moot. DePierro is no longer a

member of the union and defendants stopped deducting union membership dues

.

See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n , 891 F.3d 1206, 1211

- 1 4 (9th Cir. 2018)

(explaining that plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief were moot when they

resigned their union membership and presented no reasonable likelihood that they3 21

- 165 41

would rejoin the union in the future)

.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

FJW INVESTMENT, INC., D/B/A BATH 

FITTER OF PITTSBURGH,

Petitioner

v.

LUXURY BATH OF PITTSBURGH, INC., 

BARRY ERENRICH, KENNETH KAYSER, 

RICHARD GALLAGHER, BRYAN MYERS, 

MARK PINTEA, RB PRO, INC., D/B/A REBATH, JO ANN YOCHUM, AND 

CHRISTINE DUMM,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 157 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1032 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1032

To transfer vacant real property from the Federal Government to general 
  units of local government when the property has been vacant for at 
                             least 7 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 26 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To transfer vacant real property from the Federal Government to general 
  units of local government when the property has been vacant for at 
                             least 7 years.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF VACANT REAL PROPERTY.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and 
the Secretary of Agriculture are authorized to transfer without payment 
to a unit of general local government or a State, or a qualified 
community organization or public agency designated by a unit of general 
local government or a State, any real property--
            (1) which is improved by a one- to four-family residence or 
        which is a condominium unit or cooperative unit in a 
        multifamily housing project;
            (2) to which the Secretary holds title;
            (3) which has not been legally occupied for at least 7 
        years; and
            (4) which is requested by such unit, State, or agency.

                                 <all>
```
VERIZON SOUTH INC.


EXHIBIT 12


COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES





Nine Months Ended September 30, 2002(Dollars in Millions)Income before provision for income taxes and extraordinary item

$
371.7
(a)Interest expense


56.3Portion of rent expense representing interest


12.5Amortization of capitalized interest


.2Earnings, as adjusted

$
440.7Fixed charges:Interest expense

$
56.3Portion of rent expense representing interest


12.5Capitalized interest


.3Fixed Charges

$
69.1Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


6.38





|(a) |  | Excludes a gain of $1,665.6 million on sale of assets.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------