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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-51014

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADALBERTO TERRAZAS-GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1415-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Adalberto Terrazas-Guerrero

presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. GomezHerrera, 523 F.3d 554, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2008), which held that the disparity

between sentences of defendants who can participate in a fast-track program

and defendants who cannot is not “unwarranted” within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-51014 Document: 00511515478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
No. 10-51014

GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-51014 Document: 00511515478 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
# C_2010317EN.01002801.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — DHL Aviation and DHL Hub Leipzig v Commission

(Case T-452/08) (1)

1

(State aid - Air freight - Warranties relating to the operation of DHL’s new European hub at Leipzig-Halle Airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery)

2010/C 317/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: DHL Aviation SA/NV (Zaventem, Belgium) and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH (Schkeuditz, Germany) (represented by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, B. Martenczuk and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DHL Aviation SA/NV and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DHL Aviation SA/NV and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
# C_2009069EN.01001401.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/14

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-20/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1) - Distinctive character of the mark - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2009/C 69/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: R. Böhm and U. Sander, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 in Case T-71/06 Enercon GmbH v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2005 rejecting the action for annulment of the examiner's decision refusing to register a three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the outer casing of the nacelle of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 — Distinctive character of a three-dimensional mark made up of the shape of the product

Enercon GmbH

OHIM

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Enercon GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Enercon GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 11, 2010 

Order 

 

May 11, 2010 

139438(47) 

TRINA LEE BEATTIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 139438 

v COA: 284130 

Lapeer CC: 06-037681-NO 

MARK P. MICKALICH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_______________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Michigan Association for Justice 

for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered, and it is GRANTED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4499 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to set the rate of pay for employees of the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection in accordance with the General Schedule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2017 

Mr. DUFFY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to set the rate of pay for employees 

of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection in accordance with the General Schedule. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CFPB Pay Fairness 

5 Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4499 IH

1 SEC. 2. RATE OF PAY FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF 

2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1013(a)(2) of the Dodd4 Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

5 (12 U.S.C. 5493(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) COMPENSATION.—The rates of basic pay 

7 for all employees of the Bureau shall be set and ad8 justed by the Director in accordance with the Gen9 eral Schedule set forth in section 5332 of title 5, 

10 United States Code.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply to service by an employee of the 

13 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection following the 

14 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

15 Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Craig Merlin Wild , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00042

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 21205 ). Memorandum Opin ion delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice van Cleef participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment s of the
court below. We affirm the judgment s of the trial court.

We note that th e a ppellant, Craig Merlin Wild , has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 1 , 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.5


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY





         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned officer and/or 
director of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),
which is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended on Form 10-K, hereby constitutes
and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Daniel J. Distel and James E. Knox and each
of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agents, with full power
and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and any other documents in connection therewith, to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as she or he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.
        
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand 
and seal as of the 20th day of March, 1998.

                                                /s/  William H. Lambert
                                                    -----------------------     
                                                    William H. Lambert
#### AT&T Information Systems, Inc., Formerly Known as American Bell, Inc., Appellant, v McLean Business Services, Inc., Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant leased an automated telephone answering system from plaintiff. Plaintiff was to install and maintain the system. Defendant complained of malfunctions in the system, which caused it to lose customers. Plaintiff sued defendant for lease payments and termination charges. Defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, negligence and breach of contract seeking compensatory damages for lost customers, destruction of business and breach of warranty and punitive damages on its fraud counterclaim. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims on the grounds that the exclusive remedy provision of the contract barred defendant’s claim, that the contract also barred recovery of consequential damages, that punitive damages are inappropriate, that damages for economic loss are not recoverable and that the allegations of fraud are insufficient as a matter of law. Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiff’s contentions and denied its motion.

Defendant has made a prima facie showing that the limited repair or replacement remedy in the contract failed of its essential purpose *(see,*UCC 2-719 [2]; *Cayuga Harvester v Allis-Chalmers Corp.,*95 AD2d 5, 11-12). The record contains numerous reports and evidence establishing that the system malfunctioned, that plaintiff failed to remedy it and that defendant lost more than 25% of its customers and substantial annual income.

Defendant’s counterclaim for fraud is not insufficient as a matter of law. Defendant alleged that plaintiff’s misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally deceived defendant into leasing the system. The motion papers raise issues of fact regarding plaintiff’s knowledge and defendant’s reliance which preclude summary judgment *(Neydavood v Zorzy,*123 AD2d 847, 849; *Caliendo v Sutherland,*92 AD2d 690). Moreover, the alleged misrepresentations concerned the inherent capacities and characteristics of the system that existed at the time the statements were made *(see, Terris v Cummiskey,*11 AD2d 259, 260-261; *Bareham & McFarland v Kane,*228 App Div 396, 397-398; *cf., Giambrone v Owens,*167 AD2d 841).

*653If defendant can prevail on its counterclaim for fraud, it may be entitled to punitive damages. Whether plaintiff's conduct was so reprehensible as to warrant such damages *(see, Walker v Sheldon,*10 NY2d 401, 404) is a question of fact to be determined at trial *(see, Loughry v Lincoln First Bank,*67 NY2d 369, 379-380; *Nardelli v Stamberg,*44 NY2d 500, 503).

Defendant may also be entitled to damages for economic loss to the extent its third counterclaim is construed as alleging a cause of action for plaintiff’s negligent performance of the contract *(see, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Eneo Assocs.,*43 NY2d 389, 398; *Rosenbaum v Branster Realty Corp.,*276 App Div 167, 168). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
countyIDfuelYearIDmonthGroupIDfuelFormulationIDmarketSharemarketShareCV

10732012 1 20011 1 0.5 10732012 1 3910 1 0.5 10732012 2 3910 1 0.5 10732012 2 20011 1 0.5 10732012 3 20011 1 0.5 10732012 3 3927 1 0.5 10732012 4 3927 1 0.5 10732012 4 20011 1 0.5 10732012 5 20011 1 0.5 10732012 5 3927 1 0.5 10732012 6 3928 1 0.5 10732012 6 20011 1 0.5 10732012 7 20011 1 0.5 10732012 7 3928 1 0.5 10732012 8 3928 1 0.5 10732012 8 20011 1 0.5 10732012 9 20011 1 0.5 10732012 9 3928 1 0.5 10732012 10 3927 1 0.5 10732012 10 20011 1 0.5 10732012 11 20011 1 0.5 10732012 11 3927 1 0.5 10732012 12 3910 1 0.5 10732012 12 20011 1 0.5
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5970-S5971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  RECOGNIZING THE RUN TO HOME PROGRAM

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to 
highlight the groundbreaking work that some extraordinary citizens from 
Massachusetts are doing to help veterans of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. After a decade of conflict, tens of thousands of 
servicemen and women are returning home with invisible wounds. They and 
their families are struggling to cope with the effects of deployment-
related

[[Page S5971]]

stress and traumatic brain injury. In New England alone, an estimated 
50,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans experience invisible wounds 
related to combat, often requiring rigorous, individualized care.
  The Department of Veterans' Affairs plans to hire an additional 1,900 
mental health staffers across the country. This is a promising start, 
but the increasing demand for mental health services, delays in mental 
health treatment and appointments, and the growing divide between 
mental health specialists and veterans requires that we do more.
  Thankfully, in New England, concerned citizens are not standing on 
the sideline waiting for the VA to solve the problem. They are coming 
together around our veterans and their families right now to provide 
them with the support they need.
  The Run to Home Base Program offers our heroes and their families a 
place to turn. Developed through a collaborative effort of The Red Sox 
Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital, veterans have an 
opportunity to receive the compassionate support they deserve from 
trained mental health caregivers. The Run to Home Base Program is a 
perfect example of the kind of unique partnerships and innovative 
approaches that are sure to provide our newest generation of veterans 
with the world-class care that their selfless sacrifices deserve.
  I have been proud to participate for the past 2 years in the Run-Walk 
to Home Base at Fenway Park in Boston. This year's event in May raised 
over $7 million for the cause, a remarkable showing of support for our 
Nation's heroes. Imagine what could be done for other veterans and 
their families around our country if this inspiring model were to 
spread. We have an obligation to honor our veterans and their families 
through timely, predictable and effective care and compensation. Thanks 
to the Run to Home Program, many in New England are making a difference 
to better serve our veterans today.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                            EXHIBIT 11.1
                                        EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                      Three Months    Three Months     Six Months      Six Months
                                         Ended           Ended           Ended           Ended
                                     June 30, 2002   June 30, 2001   June 30, 2002   June 30, 2001
                                     --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
<S>                                  <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>

Net income                           $      138,298  $       75,715  $      250,791  $      176,134
                                     ==============  ==============  ==============  ==============
Average shares outstanding                  560,318         560,318         560,318         560,318

Basic earnings per share             $         0.25  $         0.14  $         0.45  $         0.31
                                     ==============  ==============  ==============  ==============
Average shares outstanding                  560,318         560,318         560,318         560,318

Dilutive average shares outstanding
   under warrants and options               263,800         263,800         263,800         263,800

Exercise price                       $        10.00  $        10.00  $        10.00  $        10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise         $    2,638,000  $    2,638,000  $    2,638,000  $    2,638,000

Average market value                 $        10.49  $         9.89  $        10.42  $        10.08

Less:  Treasury stock purchased
   with assumed proceeds from
   exercise of warrants and options         251,478             N/A         253,167         261,706

Adjusted average shares-diluted             572,640         560,318         570,951         562,412

Diluted earnings per share           $         0.24  $         0.14  $         0.44  $         0.31
                                     ==============  ==============  ==============  ==============
</TABLE>

     The  stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange. The average
market  values  are  derived  from trades known to management. Private sales may
occur  where  management  of  the  Company  is  unaware  of  the  sales  price.


<PAGE>
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

18 December 2008

Case F-64/08

**Bart Nijs**

**v**

**Court of Auditors of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure – Summary statement in application of pleas in law – Staff reporting procedure – Designation of reporting officer and countersigning officer – No act adversely affecting the applicant – Manifest inadmissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Nijs seeks annulment of the decision of 27 September 2007 of the Secretary-General
of the Court of Auditors, acting in his capacity as the appointing authority, designating the Director of Translation at the
Court of Auditors as the applicant’s reporting officer and himself as the countersigning officer for the staff reporting procedure,
together with compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Preparatory act – Designation of the reporting officer
and the countersigning officer for the assessment procedure*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))*

Only measures producing binding legal consequences liable to affect the applicant’s interests directly and immediately by
significantly changing his legal situation constitute acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment.
In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination
of an internal procedure, only a measure definitively establishing the position of the institution at the conclusion of that
procedure is challengeable, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision, although the validity
of the provisional measure may be contested indirectly in an action against the challengeable measure. Even if decisive significance
might be attributed to a letter designating an official’s reporting officer and countersigning officer for the purposes of
the reporting procedure, that designation constitutes a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision
on the assessment of the official’s efficiency, ability and conduct in the service, pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.
The validity of such a measure can therefore only be called into question in an action against the final assessment report.

(see paras 16-17)

See:

11/64 *Weighardt* v *Commission* [1965] ECR 285, 298; 346/87 *Bossi* v *Commission* [1989] ECR 303, para. 23

T-32/89 and T-39/89 *Marcopoulos* v *Court**of Justice* [1990] ECR II‐281, paras 21 and 22; T-358/03 *Krahl* v *Commission* [2005] ECR‐SC I‐A‐215 and II‐993, para. 38

F-101/05 *Grünheid* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐1‐55 and II‐A‐1‐199, para. 33; F‐27/06 and F‐75/06 *Lofaro* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-0000, para. 57, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‐293/07 P
CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Aetrium Incorporated (“the Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John J. Pollock, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Douglas L. Hemer, as Chief Administrative Officer of the Company, and Paul H. Askegaard, as Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant 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 result of operations of the Company.
  
 Date: March 30, 2011

/s/ John J. PollockJohn J. Pollock

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 30, 2011

/s/ Douglas L. HemerDouglas L. Hemer

Chief Administrative OfficerDate: March 30, 2011

/s/ Paul H. AskegaardPaul H. Askegaard

Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of American Tax Credit Properties III L.P.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman Housing Credits Inc., general
partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., General Partner of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/  David Salzman
------------------------------
by: David Salzman
Chief Executive Officer of Richman
Housing Credits Inc., general partner
of Richman Tax Credit Properties III
L.P., General Partner of the Company
June 30, 2003