alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS SERGIO BRISENO, a.k.a.

Guillermo Briseno, a.k.a. Juan Vincente

Guerra, a.k.a. Juan Vicente Herrera,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50317

D.C. No. 

8:11-cr-00133-JVS-8

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 31, 2016** 

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Sergio Briseno appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(I). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

FILED

SEP 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
738 (1967), Briseno’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided

Briseno the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental

brief or answering brief has been filed.

Briseno waived his right to appeal his sentence, although he retained the

right to appeal some conditions of supervised release. Our independent review of

the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no

arguable grounds for relief regarding the terms and conditions of supervised

release. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the

appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d

974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2
# C_2020175EN.01001602.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 –Teeäär v ECB

(Case T-547/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB - Rejection of an application to take part in that programme - Eligibility conditions - Different lengths of service required depending on whether a staff member is in a single salary band or a salary broadband - Allocation to a salary band on the basis of the type of employment - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 175/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: D. Camilleri Podestà and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for, first, annulment of the decision of the ECB of 27 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the pilot programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB and, in so far as necessary, the ECB’s decision of 3 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal against the abovementioned decision of 27 February 2018 and, secondly, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Raivo Teeäär to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Raivo Teeäär to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



GENAERA CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Skolas                               
|John A. Skolas                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2004
# C_2018152EN.01005801.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/58

---

Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Beko v EUIPO — Acer (ALTUS)

(Case T-162/18)

(2018/C 152/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Tritton, barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Acer, Inc. (Taipei City, Taiwan).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALTUS — Application for registration No 6 490 809

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1991/2016-5.

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the matter back to EUIPO to reconsider the request for suspension; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the matter back to EUIPO to reconsider the request for suspension;

| — | order the suspension of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the suspension of the proceedings;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | EUIPO was wrong not to grant the request for suspension of the opposition pending the outcome of the Slovakian proceedings. In particular, it is submitted that the reasoning of the Fifth Board of Appeal was manifestly flawed and/or unreasonable and/or failed to address the ‘the whole picture’ and accordingly was not in a position to weigh properly the various interests involved and/or amounted to a misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUIPO was wrong not to grant the request for suspension of the opposition pending the outcome of the Slovakian proceedings. In particular, it is submitted that the reasoning of the Fifth Board of Appeal was manifestly flawed and/or unreasonable and/or failed to address the ‘the whole picture’ and accordingly was not in a position to weigh properly the various interests involved and/or amounted to a misuse of powers.

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00122-CV

UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant

V.

LEAP OF FAITH ADVENTURES, LLC,

Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 17th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (017-300796-18)

October 15, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. We reverse in part the trial court’s 

order denying UATP’s TCPA motion, and we render judgment dismissing Leap of 

Faith’s tortious interference claims for inducing Leap of Faith employees to leave 

their employment at Leap of Faith and go to work for UATP and for contacting 

suppliers and inducing them not to do business with Leap of Faith. We remand the 

case as to these two claims for the trial court to consider court costs and attorney’s 

fees under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.009. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 
Code Ann. § 27.009. As to all remaining claims not dismissed by the trial court, we 

affirm the trial court’s denial of UATP’s motion to dismiss.

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own cost of this proceeding, 

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                         $145,901,000
<SECURITIES>                                                     23,707,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     4,338,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                       8,376,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                177,007,000
<PP&E>                                                            4,476,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   (1,787,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  186,438,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            21,761,000
<BONDS>                                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                       3,500,000
<COMMON>                                                             37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                      141,221,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    186,438,000
<SALES>                                                          $8,674,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 26,962,000
<CGS>                                                             7,617,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    11,617,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (27,986,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (27,986,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (27,986,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             0
<FN>
<F1> * Additional paid-in capital - $247,999,000
       Accumulated Deficit - $(106,778,000)
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### Nettie P. SMOOT, Executrix of the Estate of I. A. Smoot, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HYDRO FLAME CORPORATION and Utah State Securities Commission, Defendants and Respondents. R. Earl DILLMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HYDRO FLAME CORPORATION and Utah State Securities Commission, Defendants and Respondents.

Nos. 13427, 13435.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 14, 1974.

A. Park Smoot, Murray, for Smoot.

Brant H. Wall, Salt Lake City, for Dill-man.

Macoy A. McMurray, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a summary judgment of no cause of action in two consolidated actions by stockholders for dividends and accounting allegedly arising out of failure by Hydro to protect the formers’ rights after a merger or purchase by the latter of a previously incorporated firm in which plaintiffs were interested as stockholders. Affirmed with costs to Hydro.

In 1951, General Investment Company was born. Decedent Smoot, whose executrix is plaintiff here, was an officer and shareholder to the tune of 70,000 shares, which shares with those of other shareholders, were included in a trust administra-ble by ope Huyler, Trustee,' — -which shares were escrowed with the Utah Securities Commission, to protect the public against any unauthorized or fraudulent sale of corporate stock. The corporate assets had to do with oil production on specified tracts of land, which has little, but *710only historic moment here. No activity is evidenced. The deceased Smoot resigned as an officer of General Investment not long after its inception and there is nothing to indicate any interest or inclination on his part or the trustee’s to pursue any claim as to stock interest after a “merger” or purchase in toto of General’s assets and stock by Hydro, via written agreement and by an over the counter, above the counter, but not under the counter exchange for a specified number of shares of stock transferred by Hydro to General, all pursuant to negotiation and regular majority vote of the latter’s stockholders, of which Smoot was one, by legitimate notice and meeting of the stockholders.

Sixteen years after this transaction, plaintiff claims its decedent had no knowledge of such transfer and hence the statute of limitations would not start to run until discovery, and knowledge thereof.

The facts belie and defeat such an argument. No fraud is alleged or shown. Nothing is reflected to indicate low blows, hidden microphones, smoke-filled rooms or deception.

We think and hold that plaintiffs have the wrong defendant, that couldn’t have inherited the trusteeship here; that if any rights in plaintiff could have been extant, they must have been asserted against their paterfamilias, — the trustee, — long since dead and gone, and against whose corpus unfortunately there seems to be no juris at the present time.

CALLISTER, C. J., and CROCKETT, ELLETT and TUSKETT, JJ., concur.
#### Patricia Ann PROFIT, Appellant, v. The CITY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-74-775.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 24, 1975.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1975.

Terry L. Meltzer, Tulsa, for appellant.

Richard J. Kallsnick, Asst. City Prosecutor, Tulsa, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellant, Patricia Ann Profit, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Case No. T-73-11936, for the offense of Transporting Another to a House for the Purpose of Prostitution. Her punishment was fixed at a'term of thirty (30) days in the City Jail. From said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

As this cause requires reversal for a new trial, we do not deem it necessary to recite the facts. We have diligently searched the record and find that the same does not contain the ordinance under which the defendant was tried and convicted. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from must be, and the same hereby is, REVERSED AND REMANDED. See, Goomda v. City of Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 991 (1973), where this Court held in the Syllabus :

> “On a review of a municipal court judgment the Court of Criminal Appeals will not take judicial notice of an ordinance involved, . . . . Such ordinance must be reflected in the record, . or the wording must have been agreed to by the parties and stipulation entered in the record during trial.”

See also, Cooper v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 910 (1972), Johnson v. State, Okl.Cr., 504 P.2d 901 (1972), and Simmons v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 429 P.2d 530 (1967).

Judgment and sentence reversed and remanded.

BRETT, P. J., and BLISS, J., concur.
#### State v. Cabral

16252

11/8/94

Denied

77 Hawai'i 216, 883 P.2d 638
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27587]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--MLCommons Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 2, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), MLCommons Association 
(``MLCommons'') filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, AI & Partners, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Juniper Networks, 
Sunnyvale, CA; Fuzzy Sequence Pte. Ltd., Singapore, SINGAPORE; Ying-
Jung Chen (individual member), Cupertino, CA; Robert Kubicek 
(individual member), Darmstadt, GERMANY; Jiachen Liu (individual 
member), Ann Arbor, MI; Jae-Won Chung (individual member), Ann Arbor, 
MI; and Regis Pierrard (individual member), Paris, FRANCE have been 
added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Cognitiviti Pty Ltd., West End, AUSTRALIA; Cerebras Systems, 
Los Altos, CA; Gigantor Technologies, Inc., Melbourne Beach, FL; Huawei 
Technologies Co., Ltd. (ELO), Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; 
Tetra, Seattle, WA; and Nebuly Societa Benefit S.r.l., Torino, ITALY 
have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MLCommons intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 15, 2020, MLCommons filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 29, 2020 (85 FR 61032).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 17, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 6, 2023 (88 FR 69671).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-27587 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
2450 Derry Road East

Hangar 9, Suite 5

Mississauga, ON L5S 1B2

Tel: (905) 405-0331

Fax: (905) 405-0332

www.imageaircharter.com

BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

Application of

IMAGE AIR CHATER LTD Docket OST-18519

For an exemption pursuant to

49 USC 40109 (U.S. – Canada 

Charter Air Transportation 

APPLICATION OF IMAGE AIR CHARTER LTD

FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION AUTHORITY 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 and § 302.300 et.seq. of the Department’s 

Regulations, Image Air Charter Ltd, hereby applies for renewal of its exemption 

form 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to the extent necessary to enable it to continue to conduct 

charter operations, carrying persons, property and mail, between Canada and the 

United States and other charters pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212, using aircraft having 

a maximum passenger capacity of not more than 60 seats and maximum payload 

capacity of not more than 18,000 pounds. The authority for which renewal is 

requested was initially granted on October 26th, 2005 and renewed on February 3rd

, 2010. 
Image Air Charter Ltd requests that its authority, which is now scheduled to 

terminate on February 3

rd

, 2012, be renewed for an additional two-year period. 1 

When the Department first granted exemption authority to Image Air Charter Ltd, 

it determined that Image Air Charter was operationally and financially qualified 

and properly licensed to conduct the service for which authority was requested. 

The Department also determined that grant of the authority requested was 

consistent with the U.S. – Canada Air Transport Agreement. Based on those 

findings, the Department concluded that grant of the requested authority would be 

consistent with the public interest. Each of the decisional factors cited by the 

Department as support for its initial grant of authority remains in effect today. 

Under these circumstances, grant of this renewal application remains consistent 

with the public interest. 

ACCORDINGLY, Image Air Charter Ltd respectfully requests that the 

Department grant this application. Image Air Charter Ltd further requests that its 

authority be renewed for a two-year period. Sincerely, 

1 In filing this application, Image Air Charter relies upon the automatic extension provision of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §558(c), as implemented by 14 C.F.R. Part 377, to continue its current authority in effect 

pending Department action on this Application. 

Yours truly,

Miguel Mendes,

President

Image Air Charter Ltd
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 704 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 704

  Recognizing the roles and contributions of teachers to building and 
    enhancing the Nation's civic, cultural, and economic well-being.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2016

  Mr. Graves of Missouri (for himself, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. DelBene, Mr. 
 Bost, and Mr. Guthrie) submitted the following resolution; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the roles and contributions of teachers to building and 
    enhancing the Nation's civic, cultural, and economic well-being.

Whereas education and knowledge are the foundation of the Nation's current and 
        future strength;
Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and deserve the respect 
        of their students and communities for their selfless dedication to 
        community service and the future of the Nation's children;
Whereas the purpose of ``National Teacher Appreciation Week'', held during May 
        2, 2016, through May 6, 2016, is to raise public awareness of the 
        unquantifiable contributions of teachers and to promote greater respect 
        and understanding for the teaching profession; and
Whereas students, schools, communities, and a number of organizations 
        representing educators are hosting teacher appreciation events in 
        recognition of ``National Teacher Appreciation Week'': Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks and promotes the 
profession of teaching by encouraging students, parents, school 
administrators, and public officials to participate in teacher 
appreciation events during ``National Teacher Appreciation Week''.
                                 <all>
```