alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32001Q0427(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001Q0427(01)

**Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 3 April 2001 **

*
Official Journal L 119 , 27/04/2001 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

of 3 April 2001

THE COURT,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 245 thereof,

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 55 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 160 thereof,

Whereas:

Where the Council or the Commission is not a party to a case, the Court is required to send to it copies of the application and of the defence, in order to enable it to assess whether the inapplicability of one of its acts is being invoked. Provision should be made for copies of those documents likewise to be sent to the European Parliament in order to enable it, where it is not a party to a case, to assess whether the inapplicability of an act adopted jointly by the European Parliament and by the Council is being invoked,

With the unanimous approval of the Council given on 12 March 2001,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE:

Article 1

The following sentence shall be added to Article 16(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 19 June 1991(1): "Copies of the application and of the defence shall likewise be sent to the European Parliament, to enable it to assess whether the inapplicability of an act adopted jointly by that institution and by the Council is being invoked under Article 241 of the EC Treaty."

Article 2

This amendment to the Rules of Procedure, which is authentic in the languages mentioned in Article 29(1) of the said Rules, shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following its publication.

Done at Luxembourg, 3 April 2001.

(1) OJ L 176, 4.7.1991, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 383, 29.12.1992, p. 117, as amended on 21 February 1995 (OJ L 44, 28.2.1995, p. 61), 11 March 1997 (OJ L 103, 19.4.1997, p. 1), with corrigendum in OJ L 351, 23.12.1997, p. 72, 16 May 2000 (OJ L 122, 24.5.2000, p. 43) and 28 November 2000 (OJ L 322, 19.12.2000, p. 1).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS INFORMATION CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             27
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                       22
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                              4
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         1,014
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,353
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   76
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      17 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    30
<INCOME-TAX>                                       11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                19
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       19
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<FN>

NOTE: THE BALANCE SHEET PRESENTED BY CASE CREDIT CORPORATION IS UNCLASSIFIED.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Workshop on Condensing Heating and Water Heating Equipment

Thursday, October 9, 2014

List of Attendees

Organization/Attendees

DOE

- John Cymbalsky

- Ashley Armstrong

- Johanna Hariharan 

AGA

- Kathryn Clay

- Rick Murphy

- Lisa Dundon

APGA

- Dave Schryver

- Bud Miller

Gas Technology Institute

- Neil Leslie

Washington Gas Light

- Melissa Adams

- Kevin Dunn

ACEEE

- Harvey Sachs

ASAP

- Andrew deLaski

ASE

- Rodney Sobin

NRDC

- Elizabeth Noll

AHRI

- Frank Stanonik

ACCA

- Charlie McCrudden

- Glenn Hourahan

- Christine Hazelbaker

Virginia Sierra Club

- Dick Ball

- Tim Stevens
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. EURAL DEWAYNE DEBBS, SR., Appellant. No. 70223-8- DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

### FILED: jul 7 2014
Per Curiam

— Eural Debbs appeals his convictions for witness tampering and 

### fourth degree assault, arguing thatthe trial courterred ininstructing thejurythat it had a 

### "duty to return a verdict ofguilty" if itfound allthe elements ofthe offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is controlled by our decision inState v. Ryan P. 

### Moore, Wn. App. , 318 P.3d 296 (2014) and the cases cited therein. Affirmed. For the Court: 

# i3,^^v^

era wo HP C_ —i^. cr m ' i— o-^; -T) ' -, —i tf-cr -^ -n n 3a> C/5 TV". ' IX zls £?' "" en L.» , — - en o5 o Z'"~ "-"-C
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43274-43275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18044]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:  Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday August 3, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event

[[Page 43275]]

that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an 
announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-18044 Filed 7-20-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
Department C8020 Northwest Airlines, Inc. 5101 Northwest Drive St. Paul, MN 55111-3034 June 15,2006 Mr. Joe White Director, Aircraft Systems Engineering Air Transport Association ofAmerica, Inc 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004-1707 NORTHWEST AlRUNE5.

Subject: B737, B747, B757, B767, and B777 Static Inverters

- Supplemental NPRM References: ATA Airworthiness Directive Memorandum 06-AD-191

Docket No. 2002-NM-12-AD, May 26, 2006 Dear Mr. White Northwest Airlines, Inc (NWA) offers the following comments regarding reopening the comment period for the FAA's new proposed Airworthiness Directive 2002-NM-12-AD requiring modification of certain static inverters manufactured by Avionic Instruments, Inc. The proposed AD would be applicable to B737-300, thru -900, B747-400, B757, B767, and B777 series airplanes and would affect 59 units atNWA. The comments issued by NWA for the original NPRM Docket No. 2002-NM-12-AD, June 27, 2002 have been addressed by the FAA. The compliance time was extended from 18months to42 months. NWA docs not have any additional comments atthis time. Respectfully,

Gregory L.Budinger Chief Engineer ce: JohnZawloeki RussFox JeffVanderWal WaltBranz Steve Terrio DecLee
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua Sefnathn CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11367 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 25, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joshua Sefnathn Chavez, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joshua Sefnathn Chavez 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). Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant *813portions 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.
#### Gregory GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6179

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, Alan Wilson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*295PER CURIAM:

Gregory Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED               NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,                   SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                       --------------------            --------------------
                                                       1996            1995            1996            1995
                                                       ----            ----            ----            ----
Fully Diluted: *

Weighted average number of Common Shares
Outstanding
Disregarding Potentially Dilutive Common Stock
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>      
Purchase Warrants and options                        3,365,600       1,893,600       3,016,403       1,893,600

Assumed Exercise of Options (1)                           --             - 0 -           - 0 -           - 0 -

Assuming Conversion of Warrants(1)                        --             - 0 -           - 0 -           - 0 -

Weighted average number of Common Shares
Outstanding as adjusted                              3,365,600       1,893,600       3,016,403       1,893,600


Income for Fully Diluted Calculations                  172,741         222,070         465,370         695,329

Fully Diluted Earnings  per Common Share                   .05             .12             .15             .37
</TABLE>





(1) The effects of the exercise of certain options to purchase Common Stock and
the exercise of the outstanding Class A Warrants are excluded from the
calculation as such financial instruments do not become exercisable until 1997.
However, if effect was given to the exercise of all such financial instruments,
the 1996 weighted average number of common shares outstanding as adjusted would
have been increased by approximately 866,000.


* This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of
1934 Release No. 9083, although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of
APB Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No

. 12

- 12515 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:99

- cr - 00208

- PAS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

ANDRE DUPREE COGDELL , Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________ Appeal from the Unit ed States District Court f

or the Southern District of Florida

_________________________ (November 14, 2012) Before BARKETT , MARCUS and MARTIN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Andre Cogdell, pro se , appeals the district court’s denial of his Case: 12-12515 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 1 of 32 post

- conviction motion to correct a purported error in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) , pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36, and his motion for reconsi deration. On appeal, Cogdell makes the following arguments: (1) the district court erred by denying his Rule 26 motion; (2) the court at his original sentencing failed to make requisite factual findings with regard to his objection to paragraph 43 of the PSI and failed to append its written determinations to a copy of the PS I, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32; (3) t he court erred in determining that the crime in paragraph 43 was a crime of vi olence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. and (4) he did not plead guilty to aggravated assault. We review de novo legal questions concerning the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Spears , 443 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 2006). We also review de novo the district court’s application of Rule 36. United States v. Portillo , 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). In this case, t he district court did not err in denying Cogdell’s Rule 36 motion or motion for reconsideration because there was no clerical error. Further, t here

were no co ntroverted facts, and, therefore, the district court was not required to make findings or append a copy of such findings to the PSI, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32. Moreover, a ny challenge to Cogdell’s career

- offender
classification is an attempt to challenge the validity of the district court’s

Case: 12-12515 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 2 of 33 sentencing guidelines calculation, and, thus, is an inappropriate use of Rule 36. See Portillo , 363 F.3d at 1164

- 65. Furthermore, any potential error in paragraph 43 of the PSI with regard t o Cogdell pleading nolo contendere to aggravated assault was invited because, in his objection to paragraph 43, he clearly asserted that he pled guilty to aggravated assault. Silvestri, 409 F.3d at 1327. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 12-12515 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose CONEJO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11408 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 6, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lara Wynn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Conejo-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction and, therefore, he should have been sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He contends that the district court exceeded the statutory maximum penalty by imposing a three-year term of supervised release under § 1326(b)(1) and, thus, violated his due process rights.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, because Conejo-Rodriguez’s argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As Conejo-Rodriguez concedes that his argument is foreclosed and is raised only to preserve it for further review, a summary affirmance is appropriate. *See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for *236summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 808 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 808

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 16 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        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. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CONVERSION.

    Section 601(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 (Public 
Law 103-206, 107 Stat. 2445) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``June 30, 1995'' and 
        inserting ``June 30, 1996''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``12 months'' and 
        inserting ``24 months''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PENA-TRUJILLO, a.k.a. Jose Pena, a.k.a. Jose Pena Portillo, a.k.a. Jose Pena Trujillo Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50449

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Sandy N. Leal, United States Attorney’s Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Andrea Renee St. Julian, Esquire, Attorney, Andrea St. Julian, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Pena-Trujillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pena-Trujillo contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve a dispute regarding whether he was on parole when he committed the instant offense and was thus subject to two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). We review de novo the district court’s compliance with Rule 32. *See United States v. Carter,*219 F.3d 863, 866 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court expressly determined that Pena-Trujillo had been on parole when he unlawfully reentered. Accordingly, the district court satisfied the requirements of Rule 32. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). Moreover, the district *966court properly relied on the presentence report in making its determination. *See United States v. Marin-Cuevas,*147 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court may accept the presentence report as reliable evidence where the probation officer who prepared the report obtained the information from “a reliable source ... had no reason to prevaricate”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publi- . cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 14.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-188624 on Form F-3 of our reports dated April 27, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the translation of Mexican peso amounts into U.S. dollar amounts in conformity with the basis stated in Note 3 c.), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 

Galaz, Yamazaki, Ruiz Urquiza, S.C.

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

 

/s/ Emeterio Barrón Perales

 

 

C.P.C. Emeterio Barrón Perales

Monterrey, Nuevo León, México

April 27, 2015

 

----