alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015232EN.01000102.xml

| 16.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7660 — KKR/Ursa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 232/02)

On 8 July 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7660. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7660. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
(logo)NORWEST MORTGAGE                                 Norwest Mortgage, Inc.
                                                       Home Campus
                                                       Des Moines, IA 50328
                                                       515/221-7300







                              Management Assertion

As of and for the period ended December 31, 1996,  Norwest  Mortgage Banking has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As of and for this same period,  Norwest Mortgage
Banking  had in effect a fidelity  bond and errors and  emissions  policy in the
amount of $20 Million.


/s/Mark Oman                                               January 15, 1997
Mark Oman, President and CEO                                Date


/s/Alta Jones                                              January 15, 1997
Alta Jones, Senior Vice President & CFO                     Date


/s/Cara Heiden                                              January 15, 1997
Cara Heiden, Executive Vice President, Loan Admin           Date



NMFL #0820H 5/96
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Keisha Graham, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County (Nicholas C. Maselli, J.), rendered April 2, 2015. The judgments convicted defendant, upon her pleas of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and petit larceny, respectively, and sentenced her to two consecutive six-month terms of imprisonment.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.</p><p>Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law ยง 165.40) and petit larceny (Penal Law ยง 155.25), and was sentenced to two consecutive six-month terms of imprisonment. Thereafter, in an affidavit of errors, defendant alleged that, prior to pleading guilty to the charges, she had been promised that the six-month sentence to be imposed by the court upon her conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree would run concurrently with the six-month sentence to be imposed upon her conviction of petit larceny. The affidavit of errors further indicated that the two misdemeanor waiver of rights forms that had been signed by defendant at the time that she had entered her guilty pleas reflect the promise to impose concurrent sentences. Defendant has served her sentences. On appeal, defendant contends that the promise of sentence was not fulfilled and she was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw her plea.</p><p>While it is generally true that "a guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored" (<i>People v Torres</i>, 45 NY2d 751, 753 [1978] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), the issue has not been preserved for appellate review since the record fails to indicate that defendant objected to the alleged violation of the plea agreement when the sentences were imposed, and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (<i>see</i> CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; <a href="../2008/2008_10185.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Murray</i>, 57 AD3d 921</a> [2008]; <a href="../2006/2006_05385.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Ganoe</i>, 31 AD3d 463</a> [2006]; <i>People v Ifill</i>, 108 AD2d 202 [1985]; <i>cf.</i> <i>People v DeClemente</i>, 108 AD2d 868 [1985]).</p><p>Defendant's remaining contention, that she was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw her guilty pleas once the court had not fulfilled its promise, was not raised in the affidavit of errors and there is no evidence to support such a claim in the court's return (<i>see People v Angel</i>, 39 Misc 3d 149[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50946[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2013]). </p><p>Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.</p><p>Brands, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 28, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:_______SE01313A1________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2015156EN.01000102.xml

| 12.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7570 — CaixaBank/BPI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 156/02)

On 4 May 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7570. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7570. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40580

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUMBERTO MARTINEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-595-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Humberto 

Martinez-Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Lopez has filed a response. 

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of

Martinez-Lopez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40580 Document: 00513776336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
No. 16-40580

2

decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United 

States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Martinez-Lopez’s motion for 

the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 

F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Martinez-Lopez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40580 Document: 00513776336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAMES LARRY BELLAMY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-2; 7:03-cv-00015-F)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Larry Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Larry Bellamy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bellamy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bellamy’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAGHVENDRA SINGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15626 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02382-JAM-KJN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Raghvendra Singh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law 

claims related to his real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court 

 

* 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).

FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15626 

orders. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside 

Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Singh’s action was proper because Singh failed to allege facts 

sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 

(9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff 

must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see 

also Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1063 (setting forth de novo standard of review for 

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). 

Dismissal of Singh’s third amended complaint without leave to amend was 

proper because the district court provided Singh with three opportunities to amend, 

and further amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of 

review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when 

amendment would be futile). We do not consider Singh’s contention that Karen 

Singh was not given an opportunity to amend the complaint because Karen Singh 

is not a party to the appeal. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in not appointing counsel 

because Singh did not file a motion for the appointment of counsel, and did not 

demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 
3 16-15626 

(9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment 

of counsel). 

Singh’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, 

is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

  Exhibit 11.1.  Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings



                                        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
                                            December 31,         December 31,
(Dollars in thousands, except EPS data)        1999                 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                  <C>

Basic Earnings Per Share

   Net income                              $    2,812          $     4,676
                                            =========            =========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:           15,920,869           15,511,214
   -----------------------------

   Basic earnings per share                $     0.18          $      0.30
                                           ==========          ===========


Diluted Earnings Per Share

   Net income                               $   2,812          $    4 ,676
                                            =========           ==========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:
   -----------------------------

   Average number of shares outstanding    15,920,869           15,511,214

        Net effect of dilutive stock
        options based on the treasury
        method & Fidelity additional
        shares                                     --                1,243

    Total average shares:                  15,920,869           15,512,457
                                           ==========           ==========

   Diluted earnings per share              $     0.18          $      0.30
                                           ==========           ==========

</TABLE>
# C_2015415EN.01000102.xml

| 15.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 415/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 415/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7759 — OMERS/AIMCO/ERM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 415/02)

On 8 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7759. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7759. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2141 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2141

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to 
    prevent certain frauds against veterans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2021

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to 
    prevent certain frauds against veterans, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Preventing Crimes Against Veterans 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TOOL TO PREVENT CERTAIN FRAUDS AGAINST VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1041. Fraud regarding veterans' benefits
    ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly 
engage in any scheme or artifice to defraud--
            ``(1) an individual of veterans' benefits; or
            ``(2) in connection with obtaining veteran's benefits for 
        an individual.
    ``(b) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
            ``(1) the term `veteran' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 101 of title 38; and
            ``(2) the term `veterans' benefits' means any benefit 
        provided under Federal law for a veteran or a dependent or 
        survivor of a veteran.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 47 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``1041. Fraud regarding veterans' benefits.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015398EN.01000101.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 398/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

OJ C 371, 9.11.2015

OJ C 363, 3.11.2015

OJ C 354, 26.10.2015

OJ C 346, 19.10.2015

OJ C 337, 12.10.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600305

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

CARLO COPPA

Petty Officer Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Bethany Payton-O’Brien, USN.

For Appellant: Commander R.D. Evans, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 30 November 2016

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, HUTCHISON, and GROHARING, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited 

as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and 

Procedure 18.2.

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted the appellant, 

pursuant to his pleas, of failing to obey a lawful general order, wrongfully 

introducing heroin onto an installation used by the armed forces with the 

intent to distribute, and wrongfully using heroin, in violation of Articles 92 

and 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 892

and 912a (2012). The military judge sentenced the appellant to 80 days’

confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. 

A pretrial agreement required the convening authority (CA) to suspend

any adjudged punitive discharge and remit it without further action,
United States v. Coppa, No. 201600305

2

contingent upon the appellant’s waiver of an administrative separation board 

and ultimate administrative separation. Consequently, the accused waived 

his right to administrative separation board proceedings and has since been 

administratively discharged from the Navy. 

Although not raised as an assignment of error, we note that the CA

approved the sentence as adjudged and ordered it executed—acknowledging 

that the punitive discharge’s execution would occur only after final judgment

upon appellate review—and mentioned the pretrial agreement’s relevant 

sentence limitation terms without actually suspending the bad-conduct 

discharge.1 When a CA fails to take action required by a pretrial agreement, 

this court has authority to enforce the agreement. United States v. Cox, 46 

C.M.R. 69, 72 (C.M.A. 1972). 

The findings and sentence, as approved by the CA, are affirmed. The 

supplemental court-martial order will reflect that the bad-conduct discharge 

was suspended until the appellant’s administrative discharge, at which time 

the suspended punitive discharge was automatically remitted.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court

 

1 The pretrial agreement also deferred adjudged confinement in excess of timeserved as of the date of trial, and required the CA to suspend, as part of the CA’s 

action, that deferred confinement for six months from the appellant’s release from 

confinement. While the CA’s action also failed to suspend the deferred 31 days of 

confinement along with the punitive discharge, that confinement and its negotiated 

suspension period have both now lapsed—thereby eliminating any risk of prejudice.