alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 86/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 86 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6128 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 86

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6128 March 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/503 of 7 March 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 684/2009 implementing Council Directive 2008/118/EC as regards the computerised procedures for the movement of excise goods under suspension of excise duty | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/504 of 7 March 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 612/2013 on the operation of the register of economic operators and tax warehouses, related statistics and reporting pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012 on administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties | 32 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/505 of 7 March 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/323 laying down detailed rules on cooperation and exchange of information between Member States regarding goods under excise duty suspension pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012 | 52 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/503 of 7 March 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 684/2009 implementing Council Directive 2008/118/EC as regards the computerised procedures for the movement of excise goods under suspension of excise duty

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/504 of 7 March 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 612/2013 on the operation of the register of economic operators and tax warehouses, related statistics and reporting pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012 on administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties

32

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/505 of 7 March 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/323 laying down detailed rules on cooperation and exchange of information between Member States regarding goods under excise duty suspension pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012

52

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### In the Matter of COMET TEXTILE CO., Inc., Bankrupt. Benjamin SOLOMON, as Trustee, Appellant, v. CHELSEA FACTORS CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 460.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 26, 1937.

David Haar, of New York City, for appellant.

*1009Joseph Dannenberg, of New York City (Julius M. Arnstein, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order (15 F.Supp. 963), affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

511 

KA 14-01106 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

NICOLE DESGROSIELLIER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

ROBERT M. PUSATERI, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (EDWARD P. PERLMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J.

Murphy, III, J.), entered May 12, 2014. The judgment revoked

defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of

imprisonment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND MARTIN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-17270

D.C. No. 

2:11-cv-00870-JAM-GGH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: MELLOY,*** CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

 

1. In its decision rejecting Raymond Martin’s arguments on direct appeal,

the California Court of Appeal did not explicitly address Martin’s claim that the

FILED

NOV 30 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).

*** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3

prosecution violated the rule established in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). 

We need not decide whether we are required to presume that the Court of Appeal

adjudicated the Napue claim on the merits, see Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct.

1088, 1091–92 (2013), for even under de novo review Martin is not entitled to

relief. 

In support of his Napue claim, Martin alleges that the prosecution knowingly

introduced false testimony that Martin directed Vincent Gregory (Martin’s codefendant) to shoot the victim during the robbery and burglary. But under

California’s felony-murder rule, the jury did not have to find that Martin directed

Gregory to shoot the victim. See People v. Chism, 58 Cal. 4th 1266, 1332 (2014). 

Rather, the jury was permitted to find Martin guilty of murder under the felonymurder rule if it found that someone else killed the victim while Martin was

engaged in committing a robbery or burglary, and that there was a logical

connection between the act causing the victim’s death and the robbery or burglary. 

See People v. Cavitt, 33 Cal. 4th 187, 203 (2004). The jury found that to be the

case, and there was ample evidence supporting that finding. For example,

evidence placed Martin in the same vehicle with Gregory and Stanley Mason (his

other co-defendant) just before the robbery and burglary, and evidence also placed

Martin in the victim’s room when the victim was shot. Gloves found in the course
Page 3 of 3

of the investigation contained Martin’s DNA, further corroborating his

involvement in the robbery and burglary. Given the ample evidence supporting

Martin’s conviction under the felony-murder rule, there is no reasonable likelihood

that the allegedly false statement affected the jury’s verdict. See Napue, 360 U.S.

at 271. 

2. We decline to consider Martin’s uncertified issue alleging a violation of

the rule established in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).

AFFIRMED.
#### Rond Lee LANE et al. v. Ted SINGLETON et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 4, 1955.

Napier & Napier, Hazard, for appellants.

S. M. Ward, Hazard, for appellees.

PER CURIAM,

This is an appeal from a judgment upholding a conveyance of land in Perry County to the appellee Ted Singleton by his mother, Isabelle Singleton. The mother clearly stated her reasons for making the conveyance and confirmed the testimony of her son. We concur in the judgment of the chancellor that the appellants established no claim to the land by adverse possession of otherwise. CR 52.01.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 of eRoomSystem Technologies,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), David A. Gestetner, President, Chief Executive
Officer, Secretary, and Chairman of the Board of the Registrant, certifies,
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; and




(2)
              the information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and result of operations of the
  Registrant.






Date: May 17,
      2010By:
            /s/ David A.
      GestetnerName:
            David A.
      GestetnerTitle:
            President, Chief Executive
      Officer, Secretary,and Chairman of the
      Board(Principal Executive,
      Financial,and Accounting
      Officer)
No. 99-40455 -1-

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40455 Conference Calendar

KEVIN LYNN BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TOMMY CRUM; WESLEY ADAMS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-64

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kevin Lynn Brown, Texas prisoner #654055, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because Brown sought both monetary damages and injunctive relief, he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit in federal
court. Whitley v. Hunt , 158 F.3d 882, 887 (5th Cir. 1998); see Arvie v. Stalder , 53 F.3d 702, 705-06 (5th Cir. 1995). Subsequent to the entry of final judgment by the district court, evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies was filed into the record. Because this evidence was not before theNo. 99-40455 -2- district court when it rendered final judgment, the dismissal without prejudice was not error. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice is AFFIRMED. Brown’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED as unnecessary.
Exhibit 23.1

		CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Supertex, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-43691) of
our report dated April 25, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Supertex, Inc. as of  March 31, 1997 and 1996, and
for the years ended March 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
				 
			      /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
			      ----------------------------
				COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Jose, California
June 4, 1997
**Exhibit 32
**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and		Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of the Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906		of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”)for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code 

Ann D. Murtlow, President and Chief Executive Officer and Kirk B. Michael,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.(“IPALCO”), each certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge: 
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or	15(d) of the Exchange Act; and 
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material	respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IPALCO. 
      /s/ Ann D. Murtlow  /s/ Kirk B. Michael   Ann D. Murtlow  Kirk B. Michael   *President and Chief Executive Officer* *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*  March 4, 2010  March 4, 2010       
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to IPALCO and will be retained by IPALCO and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**
2113 RAY BURN House Of'Foce BuotooN G W ASHINGTON, 0C 20515 (202) 225-2605 

### RICK LARSEN 2ND DISTRI C T , W AS HI N GTO N
DISTRICT OFFICES ; 119 N
. COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 1350 BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 )360) 733-4500 2930 WETMORE AvENUE, SUITE 9F EVERETT, WA 98201

(425) 252

- 3188 

# CltongrtS'S' of tbt iltnittb**~tattti** 

## J)ou5e of l\epre5entattbe5 Dafrt.)ington, iDe! 205 15-4702 E· Mai l: Rick.larsen @mail . hou se. gov http :Jna rsen.house .g ov The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary U.S . Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue S .E. Washington, D .C . 20590 May 13,2015 The Honorable John Kerry Secretary U.S. Department ofState 2201 C Street N .W . Washington, D .C. 20520 Dear Secretary Foxx and Secretary Kerry: COMMITTEES · TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ARMED SERVICES

I write to express my concern that under existing Open Skies agreements, the three largest air carriers ofthe United Arab Emirates and Qatar have created excessive capacity in U.S. air travel markets while engaging in reported labor practices that can create unnecessary risks to the longterm sustainability ofthe global airline industry. I am concerned that the three carriers are engaged in multiple U.S. markets with a number of seats far beyond the demand in those markets for air travel to the Middle East, Africa, and India. Some flights reportedly operate with load factors as low as 50 percent or less. Emirates, for example, operates a daily Airbus A380 seating up to 517 passengers between Dubai and DallasFort Worth, yet a Brookings Institution study found that in 2011, only about 55 people on average traveled between those two cities daily on an origin-and-destination basis. I am also concerned about reports that the three carriers' labor policies are inconsistent with the values we have vigorously protected over the history ofour air transportation system. For example, among the employees ofthe three carriers, my understanding is collective bargaining is forbidden, and there are reports ofwomen and those belonging to sexual minorities facing legalized discrimination. If a U.S. airline engaged in this kind ofpractices, our laws would allow the government or other U.S. airlines to address it under existing law and rules. 

### An Open Skies regime should be no different: The United States must ensure that our Open Skies agreements support U.S. interests rather than harm them. I urge you to utilize existing rules in Open Skies agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to determine a path forward that preserves the goal offull and fair global competition in the aviation industry.

# ZJ**~** Rick Larsen Ranking Member Subcommittee on Aviation 

### 510

- 150514-006 P R INTED ON RECYCL E D PAPE R
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

335 

KA 08-01689 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERYL BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY A. GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R.

Schwartz, A.J.), rendered June 16, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a

weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and, in appeal

No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of

guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§

265.02 [1]). Defendant contends in each appeal that County Court

erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence based on its

determination following a Darden hearing with respect to the

confidential informant relied upon by the police. We reject that

contention (see generally People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 493-494;

People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 181-182, rearg denied 34 NY2d 995). We

have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as

the court’s requisite “summary report as to the existence of the

informer and with respect to the communications made by the informer

to the police to which the police testify” made available to defendant

and the People (Darden, 34 NY2d at 181). Based on those documents, we

conclude that the court properly determined that the confidential

informant existed and that he provided the information to the police

concerning defendant’s possession of the handgun at the location where

defendant was stopped by the police and subsequently arrested.

 Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### C. C. MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28102.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

*660No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Drunken driving is the'offense; the punishment, three days’ confinement in jail and .a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains ho statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 560

To amend section 6901 of title 31, United States Code, to entitle units

of general local government to payments in lieu of taxes for nontaxable

Indian land.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 15, 1995

Mr. DASCHLE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend section 6901 of title 31, United States Code,

to entitle units of general local government to payments

in lieu of taxes for nontaxable Indian land.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR NON4 TAXABLE INDIAN LAND.

5 Section 6901 of title 31, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (1)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘means’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘means—
2

•S 560 IS

1 ‘‘(A) land owned by the United States Gov2 ernment—’’;

3 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)

4 through (G) as clauses (i) through (vii), respec5 tively, and adjusting the margins as appro6 priate; and

7 (C) by striking the period at the end, in8 serting a semicolon, and adding the following:

9 ‘‘(B) nontaxable Indian land.’’;

10 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para11 graph (5); and

12 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow13 ing:

14 ‘‘(2) ‘Indian land’ means land that is owned by

15 an Indian or Indian tribe or by the United States

16 in trust for an Indian or Indian tribe.

17 ‘‘(3) ‘Indian tribe’ means an Indian tribe, band,

18 nation, pueblo, or other organized group or commu19 nity, including any Alaska Native Village or regional

20 corporation as defined in or established pursuant to

21 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.

22 1601 et seq.), that is eligible for the special pro23 grams and services provided by the United States to

24 Indians because of their status as Indians.
3

•S 560 IS

1 ‘‘(4) ‘nontaxable Indian land’ means Indian

2 land that—

3 ‘‘(A) on or after the date of enactment of

4 this paragraph, is conveyed to the ownership of

5 an Indian or Indian tribe or to the United

6 States, in trust for an Indian or Indian tribe;

7 ‘‘(B) prior to the conveyance, was subject

8 to taxation by a unit of general local govern9 ment; and

10 ‘‘(C) under a provision of the Constitution

11 of the United States or an Act of Congress, is

12 not subject to taxation by the unit of general

13 local government by reason of that ownership.’’.

Æ
|                                              |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                              |  |  |
| Annual member fee                            | $70,000 | Retainer |
| Meeting fee                                  | $0 |   |
| Equity Award – Restricted  Stock Units | $135,000 value | This award is targeted to equal the number of restricted stock units with a value of approximately $135,000 as of the date of grant. |
| Presiding Director Fee                       | $30,000 | Retainer |

|               |
|---------------|
|               |  |  |
| Fee to chair  | $35,000 | Retainer |
| Fee to member | $20,000 | Retainer |

|               |
|---------------|
|               |  |  |
| Fee to chair  | $30,000 | Retainer |
| Fee to member | $15,000 | Retainer |

|               |
|---------------|
|               |  |  |
| Fee to chair  | $20,000 | Retainer |
| Fee to member | $10,000 | Retainer |

|               |
|---------------|
|               |  |  |
| Fee to chair  | $20,000 | Retainer |
| Fee to member | $10,000 | Retainer |
* 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 Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50642 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICOLAS ALEJANDRO VALDEZ-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2683-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Nicolas Alejandro Valdez-Perez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.