alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30436 Summary Calendar

_____________________

LARRY LOFTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-3635-E)

_________________________________________________________________ December 15, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Louisiana prisoner Larry Lofton, # 99305, appeals the district

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Of course, we must examine the issue of subject

matter jurisdiction on our own motion if necessary. Giannakos v.

M/V BRAVO TRADER
, 762 F.2d 1295, 12 97 (5th Cir. 1985). Lofton’s

appeal is from the district court’s resolution of the merits of theclaims he raised in a second, or successive, habeas petition. But,

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub. L.

No. 104-132 , 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), requires that a prisoner

seeking to f ile such a petition first obtain an order from this

court authorizing the district court to consider such a petition.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). Because Lofton did not obtain such

permi ssion from this court, the district court was without

jurisdiction to entertain the petition. S ee id

. Accordingly, the

judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court

with instructions to dismiss the petition.

VACATED and REMANDED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS
# C_2009082EN.01001001.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/10

---

Action brought on 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-545/08)

(2009/C 82/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by regulating retail tariffs for broadband access services without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) in conjunction with Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by regulating retail tariffs for broadband access services without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) in conjunction with Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (2);

1

2

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By regulating retail tariffs for broadband access services without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC in conjunction with Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

First, the obligations imposed on Telekomunikacja Polska by the President of the Urząd Komunikacji Elektronicznej, namely the requirement of submission by the undertaking of retail tariffs for broadband access services for approval by the national regulatory authority and the requirement that the tariffs are determined on the basis of the costs of providing the services, two years after the entry into force in Poland of the binding Community provisions, constitute new obligations and not the maintenance in force of existing obligations.

Second, the regulatory obligations concerning retail broadband access services imposed on Telekomunikacja Polska by the President of the Urząd Komunikacji Elektronicznej cannot, according to the Commission, be regarded as transitional measures within the meaning of Article 27 of the Framework Directive, since Article 17 of Directive 98/10/EC, mentioned in Article 27, concerns only tariffs for the use of the fixed public telephone network and fixed public telephone services.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

1

(2)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

2

---
# C_2008313EN.01006003.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/60

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 October 2008 — Klug v EMEA

(Case F-59/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 313/112)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008, p. 62.

1

---
================================================================================
                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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




In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  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 his knowledge:



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.



Date:  June 17, 2004


                                               /s/  Theodore Tsagkaris
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Theodore Tsagkaris
                                               Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
                                               (Principal Financial Officer and
                                               Principal Accounting Officer)
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0461

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM169AD

747-53A2682 --- 5/8/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
# C_2011186EN.01002001.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Arkema France v Commission

(Case T-343/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sodium chlorate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - Aggravating circumstance - Repeat infringement - Mitigating circumstance - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value)

2011/C 186/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas and H. Kanellopoulos, then S. Sorinas, E. Jégou and M. Sabeva, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, É. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Principally, action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate), in so far as that decision relates to Arkema France and, in the alternative, action for annulment or reduction of the amounts of the fines imposed on that company in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arkema France to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arkema France to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
thaornble it. C. Shgb, Jr., Page 3

We bmw pte~Iow1~ pint414 out th8t in QpiulcbnO-1491, tbh **dsprtment** ImIdtbt tha Csttificata of Title Act, hrttcle 1636-i. **Vwmta% Anotated**  PamalCode, mpetre4es Artkl8r 1434 and 1435 at Venom’s AanoWe4 Peaal Cede, lm*mach a* tb Ceriifiutr ol Tith **Act** eomro the ume 

### pneral aobJect**matter.** ~Wowa’ ccr. l VMII if this w er e net tr ue l d qe wotb compeued **to** Ioek to Atucla 1434, **Vernoa% AanoInted**  prlul Code, **for tha** **aanrw te**  **your qtwrtim,**  **th toMIt**  rod4 be the rime. ArtAUk I4f4 uhe secuan 60 of Arude 1436-l pto*id6a tbditrpplka to kay1#&4ot ~eoad-M*rlJrb tequhd to ba togist8t.d amlet tb iews d Ma Stat.“. AI bsfmn dntad, the wh&k la qo8rucm operated dcag the hlghwaye af thin State **by nea-rwid8ata**  **em an**  oce~lciamal trip lnta this State ls not teqaltd **to be**  **tr@abted** or ikenaed.

Cauequemtly, we hotd, aad you ate tespetfully advlae4, thatnelth*t Articles l434 -- 1435,Vornm*o AnaotMed Peral co&r, not Article 1436-1. Vemodr Aanotmtad Penal Code, applies to a aoa-rO*ldOnt on an 8ee*rrlosnl trip late thir State under tlm facte rot forth In ymr Iotter. **Tows** very truly ATTORNEY GKNERAL OF TEXAS


## l /Waltct 0. Moth

Waet R. Koch Aui8tMt

**APPRQVE13** APR A, 1940 &WaId C. MWUI **ATTORXEY** GiElUEltALOF TKXAS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4633 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4633

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit individuals who are 
   eligible for assistance under a Department of Defense educational 
  assistance program or authority to use such tuition assistance for 
licensing and certification programs offered by entities other than an 
                    institution of higher education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2017

Mr. Womack (for himself, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, 
 Mr. Russell, and Mr. Carter of Texas) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit individuals who are 
   eligible for assistance under a Department of Defense educational 
  assistance program or authority to use such tuition assistance for 
licensing and certification programs offered by entities other than an 
                    institution of higher education.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Credentialing, Educating, and 
Relevant Training Initiative For Your Heroes Act'' or the ``CERTIFY 
Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION REGARDING USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TUITION 
              ASSISTANCE FOR LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS.

    Section 2006a(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1)--
            (1) by striking ``Effective as of August 1, 2014, an'' and 
        inserting ``An''; and
            (2) by striking ``as follows'' and inserting ``that 
        satisfies one or more of the following requirements''.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Wilfer v OHIM (Representation of the head of a guitar)**

**(Case T-458/08)**

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in silver, grey and brown – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Examination of the facts of its own motion – Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) – Equal treatment

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 60)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Scope (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see paras 71-72)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the Community judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation
No 40/94) (see paras 93-95)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2008 (Case R 78/2007-4), concerning the registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Hans-Peter Wilfer |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown, for goods in Classes 9 and 15 – Application No 2639821 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Hans-Peter Wilfer to pay the costs. |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Corley, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of burglary, larceny and criminal mischief, defendant’s sole contention is that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. We disagree. The People declared their readiness on the record on August 10, 1989, 150 days after the filing of the felony complaint on March 13. Because the People declared their readiness for trial within the six-month period, there is no occasion to consider the reasons for the preindictment delay. Moreover, because the People’s announcement of readiness satisfied their obligation under CPL 30.30 *(see, People v Giordano,*56 NY2d 524, 525), any subsequent delay in prosecution is inconsequential, absent a contention, not present here, that the People were not in fact ready at that time or subsequently became "unready” *(see, People v Anderson,*66 NY2d 529; *People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331).

Defendant argues that the August 10 declaration of readiness was ineffective because, although it was made on the record in open court, neither defendant nor defense counsel was present at the time, nor were they "promptly notif[ied]” *614of the statement of readiness by the prosecutor *(People v Kendzia, supra,*at 337, n). As established by the testimony at the CPL 30.30 hearing, the People were unable to locate defendant during that period, thus rendering it impossible for them to notify him of their readiness. Further, because defendant was not then represented, it was not possible to notify defense counsel. The People reiterated their declaration of readiness in open court on October 12, as soon as defendant was arraigned and new counsel assigned. That satisfied the "promptly notify” requirement of *Kendzia (supra,*at 337, n). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.— Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BRETT HAHN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30244

D.C. No. 9:06-cr-00064-DWM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Brett Hahn appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following remand

for resentencing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hahn contends the district court procedurally erred when it imposed a

consecutive sentence on remand without giving him credit for the 902 days he

FILED

SEP 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-30244

served in state custody. The district court’s decision to depart from section

5G1.3(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines by imposing a consecutive sentence

obviated the requirement that Hahn be granted credit for time spent in state custody

under section 5G1.3(b)(1). Moreover, the district court’s explanation for its

sentence was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Rita v.

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

991-92, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Hahn’s motion to expedite appellate review is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008260EN.01001501.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/15

---

Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)

(Case T-307/08)

(2008/C 260/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks, C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones SL (Cuarte de Huerva, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 1199/2007-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 1199/2007-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘4 OUT Living’ for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 604 969 of the figurative mark ‘Living & Co’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a risk of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 454 

To amend the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to complete the required 

700-mile southwest border fencing by December 31, 2017, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

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

on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to direct the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to complete the required 700-mile southwest 

border fencing by December 31, 2017, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Finish the Fence Act of 

5 2017’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 454 IH

1 SEC. 2. FENCING ALONG AND OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF 

2 THE SOUTHWEST BORDER. 

3 (a) FENCING.—Paragraph (1) of section 102(b) of 

4 the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi5 bility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, not 

7 later than December 31, 2017,’’ before ‘‘construct’’; 

8 (2) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

9 (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and 

10 (D) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively. 

11 (b) OPERATIONAL CONTROL.—Subsection (a) of sec12 tion 2 the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; 

13 Public Law 109–367) is amended, in the matter preceding 

14 paragraph (1)— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘18 months after the date of the 

16 enactment of this Act,’’ and inserting ‘‘December 

17 31, 2017,’’; and 

18 (2) by inserting ‘‘, in consultation with State 

19 and local officials along the international border be20 tween the United States and Mexico, including bor21 der State governors, mayors of border towns and cit22 ies, and border sheriffs,’’ before ‘‘shall’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS