alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I MR AN KH AN , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 70679 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 650- 715 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I m r a n K ha n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of F i j i , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j ud ge’ s orderdenyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen rem ov alproceedi ng s. W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of 

# FI LED OC T 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 70679 2 am o tio n to r e o p e n a n dr e v ie w d e n o v o c la im s o f du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s . Mo h a m m e d

v . G o n z a les , 400 F . 3d 785, 791 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w . T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng K han’ s m ot i on t o reopen ba s e d on i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e byhi s thr e e f orm e ra tt orne y s . K han di d not es t abl i sh ac tual defi ci entperf orm ance by hi s f

i rs tatt orney, w here the att orney w i thdr e w hi s appl i c a t i ons f orr e l i e f a nd a c c e pt e d vol unt aryde partur e t o a l l ow pet i t i on ert o i m m i grat e t o C anada t o j oi n h i s C anadi an ci t i ze n w i fe . See T o rresCha vez v . H

older , 567 F . 3d 1096, 1100- 02 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . A s t o the s ubs e que nt a tto rn e y s , K h a n d idn o t e s tab lis h p r e ju d ic e f r o m th e irf

a ilu r e to f

ile am o tio n to r e ope n, w he r e hi s de c l a r a t i on s t a t e s tha the m e tw i th the a tt orne y s a f t e rthe ap p lic ab le f

ilin g d e a d lin e . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2 ) (a m o t i o n t o reo p en m u st b e f ile dw ith in 9 0 d a y s o f

th e f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e r ) ; Moh am m ed , 40 0 F . 3d at 793- 94 ( pr e

j udi c e r e s ul t s w he n c ouns e l ’ s a c t i ons m ayha ve a f f e c t e d the out c om e of proceedi ng s) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### State v. Kaahanui

17620

5/31/95

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89726-89727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28593]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Review)]


Softwood Lumber Products From Canada

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of

[[Page 89727]]

1930 (``the Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty and 
antidumping duty orders on softwood lumber products from Canada would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to 
an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on December 1, 2022 (87 FR 
73778) and determined on March 6, 2023 that it would conduct full 
reviews (88 FR 16458, March 17, 2023). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on April 18, 2023 (88 
FR 23690). The Commission conducted its hearing on October 12, 2023. 
All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to 
participate.
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on December 21, 2023. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5479 (December 2023), 
entitled Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Investigation Nos. 701-
TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 21, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-28593 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# C_2008171EN.01002802.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-209/08)

(2008/C 171/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Maria Condou Durande, agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (1) or, in any event, by not having informed the Commission of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (1) or, in any event, by not having informed the Commission of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 5 August 2006. At the date of bringing this action, the defendant has not yet taken the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, has not informed the Commission of them.

---

(1)  OJ L 261, p. 19.

1

---
# C_2008285EN.01002201.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2008 — Romana Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien

(Case C-363/08)

(2008/C 285/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Romana Slanina

Applicant:

Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it follow from Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) (‘the regulation’) that the divorced wife, who is not in employment, of a man who lives in Austria, and who is not self-employed, maintains her right to family allowance (in respect of a child) vis-à-vis Austria, if she establishes a permanent residence in another Member State and centres her life there, and if she continues not to be in employment there? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it follow from Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) (‘the regulation’) that the divorced wife, who is not in employment, of a man who lives in Austria, and who is not self-employed, maintains her right to family allowance (in respect of a child) vis-à-vis Austria, if she establishes a permanent residence in another Member State and centres her life there, and if she continues not to be in employment there?

1

vis-à-vis

| 2. | Is it relevant to the answer to question 1 that Austria, where the divorced man remains and where he is exclusively resident and employed, grants him under certain conditions the right to family allowances (in respect of the child), if the divorced wife's right no longer exists? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to the answer to question 1 that Austria, where the divorced man remains and where he is exclusively resident and employed, grants him under certain conditions the right to family allowances (in respect of the child), if the divorced wife's right no longer exists?

| 3. | Does the regulation give the divorced wife a right to family allowances (in respect of the child) vis-à-vis Austria, where the divorced man and father of the child is resident and employed, if the circumstances as described in question 1 change so that the wife takes up employment in the new Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the regulation give the divorced wife a right to family allowances (in respect of the child) vis-à-vis Austria, where the divorced man and father of the child is resident and employed, if the circumstances as described in question 1 change so that the wife takes up employment in the new Member State?

vis-à-vis

---

(1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-50286 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jose Ivan Licona-Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:20-CR-417-1 

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges 

Per Curiam:*

Jose Ivan Licona-Rodriguez appeals the 24-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United 

States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). As his sole 

appellate issue, Licona-Rodriguez argues that the sentencing enhancement 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 19, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-50286 Document: 00516101164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2021
No. 21-50286 

2 

under § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because the statute provides for a 

sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts 

that are not alleged in the indictment and not admitted or found beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Although Licona-Rodriguez concedes that his argument is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he 

wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without 

opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time 

to file its brief. 

As the Government asserts and as Licona-Rodriguez concedes, the 

sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United 

States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Because the 

Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can 

be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is 

appropriate. 

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as 

unnecessary. 

Case: 21-50286 Document: 00516101164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2021
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Brad
      E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the "Company") do
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June
      27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:
      August 13, 2008




/s/Brad
                E. Herr


Brad
      E.
      Herr


Chief
      Financial Officer
# C_2008272EN.01005103.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/51

---

Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-73/08)

(2008/C 272/100)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of various Commission decisions refusing the applicant 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses, and payment by the Commission of the relevant amount

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 27 June 2007 and sent on 28 June 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 27 June 2007 and sent on 28 June 2007;

| — | Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 29 June 2007 and sent the same day; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 29 June 2007 and sent the same day;

| — | Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 30 June 2007 and sent on 2 July 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 30 June 2007 and sent on 2 July 2007;

| — | Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 2 July 2007 and sent the same day; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision refusing the application dated 2 July 2007 and sent the same day;

| — | Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the memorandum dated 29 April 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the memorandum dated 29 April 2008;

| — | Order that the Commission pay the applicant, by way of 100 % reimbursement of the medical expenses, the sum of EUR 4 747,29 or such lesser sum as the Court may consider appropriate, plus interest at the rate of 10 % per annum with annual capitalisation, or at such rate, with such capitalisation and from such date as the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Commission pay the applicant, by way of 100 % reimbursement of the medical expenses, the sum of EUR 4 747,29 or such lesser sum as the Court may consider appropriate, plus interest at the rate of 10 % per annum with annual capitalisation, or at such rate, with such capitalisation and from such date as the Court considers appropriate;

| — | Order that the Commission pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Commission pay the costs.

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

170) ll-K- (C) -6 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:54 AM Sheet 170 of 325 
P.2 

e%*y 

J L * cs 

lL-K-(C)-6 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT DISCUSSING UPCOMING INDUSTRIAL 

BOILER NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 

Letter from H. Vidas, EEA to D. Castrano, Combustion 

Service and Equipment Co. 

June 6, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-MO- 6
# C_2008223EN.01006202.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/62

---

Action brought on 29 May 2008 — Bernard v Europol

(Case F-54/08)

(2008/C 223/118)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of Europol to extend the applicant's contract of employment for only the minimum period of 9 months.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 31 July 2007 to renew the applicant's contract of employment only until 1 June 2008 and the decision on the complaint of 29 February 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 31 July 2007 to renew the applicant's contract of employment only until 1 June 2008 and the decision on the complaint of 29 February 2008;

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

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00773

- CV

Stephen S. STOKWITZ,

Appellant

v.

Marcus TINAJERO, Charles P. Jones, and Linda Tinajero Jones,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court

, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 05

- 0464

- CVA

Honorable Lynn Ellison , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Si tting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant’s motion f

or rehearing is due by December 31, 2020. On December 28,

2020, appellant filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension until January 15, 2021

to file his motion for rehearing. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and

ORDER appellant to file his motion for rehearing by January 15, 202 1

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 29th day of December, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
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
Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company as of December 31, 2002 and for the
period then ended.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/    GLADE M.
KNIGHT                 
|Glade M. Knight Chief Executive Officer



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    STANLEY J. OLANDER,
JR.                 
|Stanley J. Olander, Jr. Chief Financial Officer



March 27, 2003
Order entered May 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00442-CR

ROCKY MORRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F95-01315-U

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s May 14, 2014 motion to send a copy of portions of the 

clerk’s record back to the district clerk and orders relief as follows.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to retrieve two exhibits consisting of 

original compact digital disks tendered to the Clerk of this Court as part of the supplemental 

clerk’s record filed on April 28, 2014. The Dallas County District Clerk is ORDERED to make 

arrangements to copy the exhibits and retain the copies for its records. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.5(g). The district clerk may use any reasonable manner and means to copy the exhibits 

including using the services and equipment of a court reporter, the Dallas County District 

Attorney, or appellant’s counsel.
We further ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to return the original exhibits to 

the Clerk of this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We EXTEND the time for appellant to file his brief until SIXTY DAYS from the date of 

this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements contained in the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
     12/31/96.
</LEGEND>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. Dollars              
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997          
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1996    
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1    
<CASH>                             1,282,866            
<SECURITIES>                               0   
<RECEIVABLES>                              0   
<ALLOWANCES>                               0   
<INVENTORY>                                0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   1,331,892   
<PP&E>                               367,171   
<DEPRECIATION>                       108,251   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     3,799,446   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                234,193   
<BONDS>                                    0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0   
<PREFERRED>                                0   
<COMMON>                             473,658   
<OTHER-SE>                        15,396,146   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       3,799,446   
<SALES>                                    0   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0   
<CGS>                                      0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1,839,211)   
<INCOME-TAX>                               0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0   
<DISCONTINUED>                             0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0   
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,839,211)   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.04)               
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.04)        
        


</TABLE>