alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32002G0205(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002G0205(02)

**Council Resolution of 21 January 2002 on the role of culture in the development of the European Union **

*
Official Journal C 032 , 05/02/2002 P. 0002 - 0002 *

Council Resolution

of 21 January 2002

on the role of culture in the development of the European Union

(2002/C 32/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

1. WHEREAS the Community contributes to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore, and whereas this imperative respect for cultural diversity underpins and sustains the Europe of culture in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

2. RECALLING the need for cultural aspects to be taken into account by the Community in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, for example in the areas of competition policy, the internal market and the common commercial policy.

3. CONSIDERING that it is essential to encourage cooperation and cultural exchanges in order to respect and promote the diversity of cultures in Europe and to improve their knowledge of one another.

4. WHEREAS culture should contribute towards improving the external visibility of the Community by emphasising its cultural diversity and the common dimensions of its cultures.

5. WHEREAS the enlargement of the Union will bring greater richness and cultural diversity.

6. WHEREAS the common dimensions and mutual knowledge of cultures in Europe, in a society based on freedom, democracy, solidarity and respect for diversity, are essential components of citizens' support for, and participation in, European integration.

7. WHEREAS, with this in mind in particular, culture constitutes a very important factor in the development and consolidation of the process of integration of the Community.

8. WHEREAS cultural development, above and beyond the prospects for individual and collective fulfilment that it can create, also generates employment and economic wealth, thus producing added value and making for growth and prosperity,

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, HEREBY:

A. INVITES the Member States and the Commission, guided as they are by respect for cultural diversity, the principle of subsidiarity and the willingness to place culture at the heart of European integration to:

- develop cultural cooperation, European artistic creativity and cultural exchanges,

- cooperate in order to enable the Commission to update the assessment of the implementation of Article 151(4) of the Treaty and to report back to the Council;

B. CONSIDERS it important to start work, particularly on the basis of that assessment, on improving the implementation of Article 151(2) and (4) of the Treaty, and INVITES future Presidencies to draw up a work programme and a timetable for that purpose;

C. CALLS ON Member States and the Commission to take these considerations into account and to regard culture as an essential component of European integration, particularly from the point of view of the enlargement of the Union.
1 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41212

Summary Calendar

 

BOBBY PRIOUR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PATRICK D. DICKENTS, Lieutenant; GARY HERRING,

Sergeant; MICHAEL A. ROESLER,Captain,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:96-CV-444

- - - - - - - - - -

May 21, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Bobby Priour, Texas prisoner # 629374, argues that the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint

based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies and his

failure to state a claim.

We have reviewed the record and brief, and affirm the

dismissal of the complaint based on Priour’s failure to state a

claim. Because Priour has failed to show that the prison
disciplinary decision against him has been invalidated or set

aside, he has failed to state an actionable § 1983 claim. See Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994); Clarke v. Stalder, 121 F.3d

222, 226 (5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        281,928
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 605,893
<ALLOWANCES>                  10,000
<INVENTORY>                   3,121,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              4,175,487
<PP&E>                        65,234
<DEPRECIATION>                11,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                6,812,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,700,408
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   550
<COMMON>                      389
<OTHER-SE>                    4,110,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  6,812,337
<SALES>                       6,503,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              6,503,625
<CGS>                         2,886,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,886,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               176,533
<INCOME-TAX>                  (86,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           263,433
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  263,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .06
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
           THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
           THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 FINANCIAL  STATMENTS OF SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC.
           AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
           STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001005698
<NAME>                        SmartServ Online, Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                          2,379,976
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      59,032
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       100,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,565,899
<PP&E>                            341,171
<DEPRECIATION>                     85,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,042,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             426,526
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           36,950
<OTHER-SE>                      2,578,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,042,288
<SALES>                            13,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   54,191
<CGS>                             359,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     359,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  487,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  3,013
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (795,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (795,837)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (795,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.22)
        


</TABLE>
August 21, 2012 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, Essential A.ir Service Division 

Office Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

·Washington, 20590 

Re: Essential Air 

DOCKET 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

·1\o 

00 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

P.O. Hox 196900 

···"'·~·/'·~= Alosko 99519~6900 

lv1oin: 907.:269.0730 

fox: 907.269.0489 

I am writing to express my strong support for continuation of the Essential Air (EAS) 

program in and to emphasize the crucial access it provides to our remote communities. 

Due to the isolated location of Adak Island, which lacks any road connection, 

subsidized air service is only form of scheduled transportation. Adak depends on scheduled 

air carrier service fbr freight, passenger, and mail service fbr basic access to mutine 

health services, and econornic welfare. 

The State of Alaska continues to assert that the local residents are generally best positioned to 

comment on particular schedules or air carriers, and theref{)re we think the community should 

provide comments to you on those specific areas. 

I respectfully urge US DOT to support and continue the EAS service at Adak. 

Sincerely, 

jfl___ 

s'teven D. Hatter 

Deputy Commissioner- Aviation
Order entered August 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00780-CV

MICHAEL O. PICKENS, Appellant

V.

ELIZABETH CORDIA, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-01890-F

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s August 3, 2013 motion to accept resubmission of the 

brief. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene GARCIA-BANUELOS, also known as Rene Garcia-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41633 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 13, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell,' Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rene Garcia-Banuelos, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rene Garcia-Banuelos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Banuelos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

*

 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,
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-141827 and Form S-8 No. 333-185892), pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation Amended and Restated 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, of our reports dated February 24, 2016 , with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial highlights and Schedule 12-14 of Triangle Capital Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Triangle Capital Corporation, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2015 .








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina


February 24, 2016
#### Andrew HUSKA, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee.

No. 23171.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

Andrew Huska, pro se.

Thomas M. Buamer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., M. D. Florida, for appellee. Eli Kaplan, Deputy Regional Atty., Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel.

Before BROWN, GEWIN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The present appeal, unlike so many we receive involving claims for Social Security disability benefits, presents solely a question of statutory construction in the computation of the amount payable. The parties agree that in Claimant-Appellant’s own unique case, it would be advantageous to him to use his earnings in the years beginning in 1937, because they were considerably higher than his earnings subsequent to 1949 when he became self-employed. The dispute is over how many “benefit computation years,” 42 U.S.C.A. § 415(b) (2) (A), must be included in computing the “average monthly wage.” Claimant in his *pro se*briefs and arguments contends that he need include only his eleven best years between 1937 and 1966, relying primarily on a pamphlet issued by the Government1 which sets out one of the methods for computing benefits. The Government agrees that this would be proper had the; Claimant chosen to rely solely on his. earnings subsequent to 1950, 42 U.S.C.A. § 415(b). The Government contends, however, and the Administrator and District Court agree, that by incorporating *864his earnings beginning in 1937 in the computation, Claimant falls within subsection (d) of § 415. Consequently, he must include *all*the years subsequent to 1937 as “benefit computation years,” not just the years subsequent to 1950.2 We are in accord with this interpretation of the statute and the computation it produces.

Affirmed.

1

. Leaflet 855, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration (October 1965).

2

. The Claimant may, of course, still exclude his five lowest earning years. 42 U.S.C.A. § 415 (b) (2) (A).
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Chuck Robert Holcomb, * From the 350th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 13191-D.

Vs. No. 11-20-00124-CR * May 5, 2022

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Armando RAMOS, also known as Jose Marquez-Ramos, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41483 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 19, 2017

John A. Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Armando Ramos appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his prior conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.02 was improperly characterized as a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He also argues that the entry of judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was erroneous because Texas aggravated assault is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which defines aggravated felony by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16. Ramos failed to object to these determinations in the district court; therefore, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Henao-Melo,*591 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2009); *see also Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

In *United States v. Guillen-Alvarez,*489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir. 2007), we held that a conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22,02 qualifies as the enumerated offense of aggravated assault, and, thus, a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), *Guillen-Alvarez*remains valid after *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d *881604 (2016). *United States v. Shepherd,*848 F.3d 426, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). We are bound by our own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc. *See United States v. Setser,*607 F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 2010).

We have also rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 16(b) based on *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). *See United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 672-79 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The grant of certiorari in *Lynch v. Dimaya,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016), does not alter our holding in *Gonzalez-Longoria. See Setser,*607 F.3d at 131. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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,
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

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Amended Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                 /s/Dan Finch
                                 ----------------------
                                 Dan Finch
                                 Chief Executive Officer

August __, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexis Correa ALBARRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4252

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 20, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexis Correa Albarran pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced Albar-ran to 42 months’ imprisonment followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. Albarran now appeals, contending that his term of supervised release is unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

A term of supervised release is part of a defendant’s sentence, *United States v. Evans,*159 F.3d 908, 913 (4th Cir. 1998), which we review for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Here Albarran challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his term of supervised release. In determining the length of a defendant’s term of supervised release, the district court must “consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) (2012). On appeal we assess substantive reasonableness, considering “the totality of the circumstances.” *Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within the properly calculated Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted by *276showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” *United States v. Louthian,*756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

Albarran contends that his three-year term of supervised release, although within the Guidelines recommendation, is unreasonable in light of the mitigating arguments he raised before the district court. The district court considered those arguments but explained that, in light of the nature of the offense conduct, a three-year term of supervised release was more appropriate in order to protect the public and provide adequate deterrence. We conclude that Albarran has not shown that his within-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
In-Person Attendees: The Portable Air Conditioners Standards Meeting Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Aloisi, Alberto Group Product Compliance

and Regulatory Affairs Manager DeLonghi Group Via L. Seitz, 47 Treviso N/A 31100 698370962 N/A Armstrong, Ashley General Engineer U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 20585-0121 202-586-6590202-586-4617 Berringer, Bryan Lead Mechanical Engineer Department of Energy (DOE) Office of the Building Technologies Program 1000 Independence Avenue SW Mailstop EE-2J Washington DC 20585 202-586-0371 202-586-4617 Besant, Martin L. Product and Safety EngineerElectrolux Major Appliances North America 521 Chelsea Rd. Aberdeen MD 21001 443-360-9073N/A Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 410-719-0580410-719-0581 Butler, Sarah GC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chun Chun, Ni N/A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)One Cyclotron Road, MS:90R4000 University of California Berkeley CA 94720-8136510-486-2118N/A Cleary, Jennifer Director, Regulatory Affairs Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 402 Washington DC 20036 202-872-5955 x314 202-872-9354 Crawford, Jim HVAC Regulatory ConsultantN/A 713 WSW Loop 323, PMB 123 Tyler TX 75701 903-566-6409 N/A Cymbalsky, John Supervisory Operations

Research Analyst U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 20585 202-287-1692202-586-4617 Dunham, Camila Program Manager Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)One Cyclotron Road, Mail Stop: 90R4000 Berkeley CA 94720 207-228-3573N/A Hodges, John Attorney at Law Wiley Rein 1776 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006 202-719-3377202-719-7049 Lee, Sang Product Manager Denso Products and Sevices Americas, Inc. 3900 Via Oro Avenue Long Beach CA 90810 310-952-7961 310-835-8724 Mauer, Joanna Technical Advocacy

Coordinator Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington DC 20045 202-507-4034N/A Prager, Mike Presidnet and CEO DeLonghi Group 2 Park Way & Route 17, South, Suite 3A Upper Saddle River NJ 07458 201-518-2278201-518-2225 Reich, Judith Associate Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street Suite 400 Burlington MA 01803 781-270-0101 781-270-0418 Singerman, Nadav N/A Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington DC 20006-1301 202-481-8327202-973-2401 Stas, Eric A. Attorney-Advisor

(General) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington DC 20585 202-586-5827202-586-4116In-Person Attendees: The Portable Air Conditioners Standards Meeting Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Vit, Stefano Regulatory Affairs and

Standartization HVAC DeLonghi Group Via L Seiltz 47 Treviso N/A 31100 N/A N/A Watson, Troy Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1801 K Street, Suite 500 Washington DC 20006-1301 202-481-8427202-973-2401