alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0064(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32004D0064(01)

**European Parliament decision electing the nominated Commission **

*
Official Journal 201 E , 18/08/2005 P. 0115 - 0115 *

P6_TA(2004)0064

Election of the Commission (decision)

European Parliament decision electing the nominated Commission

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Article 214(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 127(2) of the Euratom Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 99 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to Decision 2004/536/EC [1] of the Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, of 29 June 2004 nominating Mr José Manuel Durão Barroso as President of the Commission,

- having regard to its decision of 22 July 2004 [2] electing Mr Durão Barroso as President of the Commission,

- having regard to Council Decision 2004/642/EC, Euratom [3] of 13 September 2004, taken by common accord with the President-elect of the Commission, on the persons whom the Council intends to appoint as Members of the Commission,

- having regard to Council Decision 2004/753/EC, Euratom [4] of 5 November 2004, taken by common accord with the President-elect of the Commission, on the persons whom the Council intends to appoint as Members of the Commission,

- having regard to the hearings of the Commissioners-designate before the competent parliamentary committees, held from 27 September to 11 October 2004 and from 15 to 16 November 2004,

- having regard to the discussions held between the Conference of Presidents and the President-elect of the Commission on 21 October 2004 and 5 November 2004,

- having regard to the discussions held at the meeting of the Conference of Presidents of 16 November 2004,

- having regard to the statements made in plenary sitting by the President-elect of the Commission on 26 and 27 October 2004 and on 17 and 18 November 2004,

1. Elects the Commission for the term of office running from 22 November 2004 to 31 October 2009;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council.

[1] OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 15.

[2] Minutes of that date, P6_PV(2004)07-22, Item 8.2.

[3] OJ L 294, 17.9.2004, p. 30.

[4] OJ L 333, 9.11.2004, p. 12.

--------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 10.14

                         Assignment of Lease Agreement

                              ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE

     Agreement made the 10th day of March, 1998, between EEMPACT
CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, located at 290
Vincent Avenue, Third Floor, Hackensack, New Jersey, hereinafter called
the assignor, and K-TRONIK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation of
the State of New Jersey, located at 290 Vincent Avenue, Third Floor,
Hackensack, New Jersey, hereinafter called the assignee.

     WHEREAS, by Lease dated November 12, 1997, made between 98
INCORPORATED, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, and the
assignor, the premises described as the third floor of building located
at 290 Vincent Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey, were leased to the
assignor for the term of five (5) years from the first day of December ,
1997, and subject to the covenants, conditions, and stipulations therein
contained:

     WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by the
assignee to the assignor, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,
the assignor assigns to the assignee the premises described in said
Lease, for the unexpired term of said Lease subject to the payment of
the rent and performance of the covenants, conditions, and stipulations
in said Lease.

     The assignee covenants during the continuance of said term to pay
the rents reserved and to perform the covenants, conditions, and
stipulations in said Lease to be performed by the Lessee and to keep
indemnified the assignor against all actions, claims and demands
whatsoever in respect to the said rents, covenants, conditions and
stipulations, or anything relating thereto.

     In the event of any default by the assignee, the assignor hereby
guarantees the payment of all rents reserved in said Lease and to
perform the covenants, conditions and stipulations in said Lease.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
seals, or caused these presents to be signed by their proper corporate
officers and their proper corporate seal to be hereto affixed, the day
and year first above written.

EEMPACT CORP.                          K-TRONIK INT'L CORPORATION

/s/ Robert Kim                         /s/ Robert Kim
Robert Kim                             Robert Kim
President/Secretary                    President/Secretary

98 INCORPORATED, hereby consents to the within Assignment of Lease.

/s/ Stephen D. Grimaldi                /s/ David W. Grimaldi
Stephen D. Grimaldi, Secretary         David W. Grimaldi, President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio CAUICH-GAMBOA, also known as Marco Antonio Arce Araico, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10096 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 28, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Stephen J. Green, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*396PER CURIAM: *

Antonio Cauich-Gamboa appeals the 30-month above-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that although 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) set forth different statutory maximum sentences based on criminal history, this factor is considered as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense. Cauich-Gamboa asserts that because his sentence exceeds the two-year statutory maximum of § 1326(a), it violates due process. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In *Almendarez-Torres,*523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Thus, Cauich-Gamboa’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Rafael CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10949 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(November 8, 2017)

Corey J. Smith, Christopher P. Canova, Robert D. Stinson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, John Ryan Love, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sheryl Lowenthal, appointed counsel for Juan Rafael Chavez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Chavez’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0158 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0158

**2004/158/EC: Commission Decision of 16 February 2004 amending Decision 92/216/EEC as regards the publication of the list of coordinating authorities (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2004) 390) **

*
Official Journal L 050 , 20/02/2004 P. 0062 - 0062 *

Commission Decision

of 16 February 2004

amending Decision 92/216/EEC as regards the publication of the list of coordinating authorities

(notified under document number C(2004) 390)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/158/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/428/EEC of 26 June 1990 on trade in equidae intended for competitions and laying down the conditions for participation therein(1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Under the rules adopted for implementing Article 4 of Directive 90/428/EEC each Member State should first designate a coordinating authority responsible for collecting the necessary data.

(2) Commission Decision 92/216/EEC of 26 March 1992 on the collection of data concerning competitions for equidae as referred to in Article 4(2) of Council Directive 90/428/EEC(2) provides for a publication of a list of such authorities in the Official Journal, C series.

(3) It appears more efficient for the information of interested public to publish this list on the website of the Commission.

(4) Decision 92/216/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Zootechnics,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 92/216/EEC is replaced by the following:

"2. Each Member State shall communicate to the Commission the name and address of the coordinating authority appointed in accordance with paragraph 1. On the basis of these communications, the Commission shall draw up a list of the coordinating authorities. This list will be published on the following website:

http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/ irc/sanco/vets/information".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2004.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 60.

(2) OJ L 104, 22.4.1992, p. 77.
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1380 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1380

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1380/2003 of 31 July 2003 concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 934/2003 **

*
Official Journal L 194 , 01/08/2003 P. 0077 - 0077 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1380/2003

of 31 July 2003

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 934/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 934/2003(6).

(2) Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

(3) On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 a maximum refund should not be fixed.

(4) The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 25 to 31 July 2003 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 934/2003.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 August 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 July 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 46.

(5) OJ L 194, 23.7.2002, p. 26.

(6) OJ L 133, 29.5.2003, p. 42.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified

7 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States

8 within seven years after its submission to the State for

9 ratification:
2

SJ 5 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘Any officer of the United States appointed by the

3 President with the advice and consent of the Senate, upon

4 conviction of a felony, shall forfeit office and all preroga5 tives, benefits, or compensation thereof.’’.

Æ
Dated:    April 2, 2007                                                                             In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/E. Todd Whittemore                                                                    Title:Executive Vice President, Master ServicingAurora Loan Services LLC,   as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of  GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-AR7 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**Assurant Inc., as Sub-Contractor for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as ServicerGreenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., as ServicerLandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as Sub-Contractor for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and Custodian
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0318 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0318

**2004/318/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March 2004 adapting Decision 2001/672/EC as regards summer grazing in certain areas of Slovenia by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2004) 1022) **

*
Official Journal L 102 , 07/04/2004 P. 0071 - 0072 *

Commission Decision

of 30 March 2004

adapting Decision 2001/672/EC as regards summer grazing in certain areas of Slovenia by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia

(notified under document number C(2004) 1022)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/318/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Article 57(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) For certain acts adopted by the Commission, which remain valid beyond 1 May 2004, and require adaptation by reason of accession, the necessary adaptations were not provided for in the Act of Accession, in particular in its Annex II. Those adaptations need to be adopted before accession so as to be applicable as from accession.

(2) Slovenia has requested to apply from the date of accession the special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas as laid down in Commission Decision 2001/672/EC(1).

(3) It is justified to take account of Slovenia's request and to amend Decision 2001/672/EC accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 2001/672/EC, the text in the Annex to this Decision is added.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply, subject to, and as from the date of, the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2004.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 235, 4.9.2001, p. 23.

ANNEX

">TABLE>"
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vagan DOBADZHYAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50336

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*606Submitted November 7, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 14, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Andrew Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Victor Sherman, Attorney, Law Offices of Victor Sherman, Los Angeles; CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, GILMAN,** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a $220,000 partial bail forfeiture after Defendant-Appellant Va-gan Dobadzhyan breached a condition of his bond by committing another crime while released on bail.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f) provides that “[t]he court must declare the bail forfeited if a condition of the bond is breached,” but allows a court to “set aside in whole or in part a bail forfeiture” in accordance with “justice,” We have established six non-exhaustive factors courts may consider when determining whether a forfeiture should be remitted. *United States v. Nguyen,*279 F.3d 1112, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2002). Not all factors need “be resolved in the government’s favor” for a court to find forfeiture appropriate. *Id.*at 1116 (citation omitted). The district court found that four factors weighed in favor of forfeiture, one factor weighed against forfeiture, and one factor was irrelevant. Nevertheless, the district court remitted all of the $50,000 appearance bond and half of the $440,000 bond secured by real estate owned by Dobad-zhyan, his ex-wife, and his daughter, recognizing the burden on Dobadzhyan’s family members. The district court remained “sympathetic to the consequences a forfeiture may have on the sureties,” *id.*at 1115 (citation omitted), and acted well within its considerable discretion in remitting more than half of the total bond.

AFFIRMED.

***

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