alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30857

Conference Calendar

 

SHIRLEY JOHNSON,

on behalf of Kioki Johnson,

Individually and Tutor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SCHOOL BOARD VERMILION PARISH; ET AL.,

Defendants,

SCHOOL BOARD VERMILION PARISH,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1889

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Shirley Johnson,

acting on behalf of her minor daughter, Kioki, appeals the

magistrate judge’s dismissal of her harassment suit brought under

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.
No. 02-30857

-2-

Johnson contends, in a single paragraph in the argument section

of her appellate brief, that the magistrate judge erred in

determining that the defendant’s response to the sexual

harassment allegations fell short of the deliberate indifference

required for recovery. Johnson’s brief is inadequate to preserve

this issue for appeal since she neither refers to the record nor

cites legal authority. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). Accordingly,

she has waived this claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(issues must be properly briefed to be

preserved for appeal). In any event, the evidence adduced at

trial supports the magistrate judge’s findings. See Davis v.

Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 643, 650 (1999).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>



                                         EX-12
                                         Statement re: Computation of Ratios


                                                    Exhibit 12
                                                    Form 10-Q
                                                    For the Nine
                                                    Months Ended
                                                    June 30, 2000


                             Lucent Technologies Inc.
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         For the Nine
                                                                         Months Ended
                                                                        June 30, 2000
<S>                                                                        <C>
Income from Continuing Operations
  Before Income Taxes................................                      $ 3,029

Less: Interest Capitalized during
  the Period...........................................                         15
Less: Undistributed Earnings of Less than 50%
  Owned Affiliates.....................................                         -

Add: Fixed Charges......................................                       421

Total Earnings from Continuing
 Operations Before Income Taxes
   And Fixed Charges ....................................                  $ 3,435



Fixed Charges

Total Interest Expense Including Capitalized Interest..                      $ 296

Interest Portion of Rental Expense.....................                        125

    Total Fixed Charges................................                      $ 421


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.....................                        8.2

</TABLE>
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofNovember 1, 2014, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesCorp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior TrustAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2014-C25 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.      To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Jose Luis LOPEZ-CRISTALES, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60650 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 8, 2017

Thomas Damien Pamilla, Law Offices of Thomas D. Pamilla, A.P.C., Fremont, CA, for Petitioner

Janice Kay Redfern, Esq., Gerald Mark Alexander, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of *330Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Luis Lopez-Cristales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions this court to review the denial of his motion to reopen in absentia removal proceedings. We review the rulings of law by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) de novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence. *Zhu v.*Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). We “may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” *Gomez-Palacios v. Holder,*560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the BIA summarily affirmed the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. *Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2007).

An in absentia removal order may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that he did not receive notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Nothing that Lopez-Cristales has presented compels a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s determination that he was not entitled to reopening based on a lack of notice. *See Gomez-Palacios,*560 F.3d at 358.

The time limitations for filing a motion to reopen do noj; apply if the reason for the motion is to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief and the motion “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The IJ found that Lopez-Cristales failed to show changed conditions in Guatemala as grounds for a claim of asylum. This decision was not capricious, lacking foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it was arbitrary. *See Gomez-Palacios,*560 F.3d at 358.

To the extent that Lopez-Cristales contends that the IJ’s failure to exercise its discretion to reopen the removal proceedings sua sponte was error, we lack jurisdiction over such a claim. *Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004).

Because we lack jurisdiction over the decision not to reopen the removal proceedings sua sponte, Lopez-Cristales’s petition is DISMISSED, IN PART, on that basis. The remainder of his petition is DENIED. The Respondent’s motion to summarily deny the petition for review is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.

*

 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.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 10

Electing C. Abbott Saffold as the Secretary for the minority of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DASCHLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing C. Abbott Saffold as the Secretary for the minority

of the Senate.

1 Resolved, That C. Abbott Saffold be and she is hereby

2 elected Secretary for the minority of the Senate, beginning

3 January 4, 1995.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2892

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gina Denise Hendrix

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: January 18, 2024

Filed: January 24, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gina Hendrix received a 132-month sentence after she pleaded guilty to 

conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing it with intent to distribute. 

See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. An Anders brief suggests that the 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). 
-2- 

We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse 

of discretion). The record establishes that the district court1 sufficiently considered 

the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper 

factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. McDaniels, 19 F.4th

1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (explaining that the district court has “wide 

latitude to weigh the relevant sentencing factors” and “weighing [them] differently 

than a defendant would have preferred does not alone justify reversal” (citation 

omitted)). 

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other 

non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We 

accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission 

to withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:09 AM 

To: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE) 

Cc: Richard Parker; ahoffman@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; Aaron Meyers; Andrew 

Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie 

Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure; 

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass; Jeremiah 

Freeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey; 

John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg Waltner; 

Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Phil Hopkinson; Raymond Polinski; Rick Anderson; Rob 

Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom 

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Re: MV Working Group: Follow-up to Sept 15/16 Mtg 

A large thank you to Carlos for a very useful analysis. Isolating the least-cost units was very 

helpful, as are his observations and caveats. Not surprisingly, the same information viewed 

through an economic and market lens (as opposed to an engineering lens) shows a very different 

picture -- not a conflicting picture, but reveals different aspects of the same reality. Attached is 

our view and reflection of the same information Carlos provided, viewed in the context of market 

economics.
# C_2007095EN.01000702.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-54/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Importation of a vehicle registered in another Member State - Obligation to obtain a transfer licence)

(2007/C 95/11)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC — Import by a person resident in Finland of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — Obligation to obtain, at the frontier point, a transfer licence usually valid for seven days and to take out an insurance policy for the vehicle

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring a transfer licence for the putting into circulation of vehicles lawfully registered and used in another Member State, as provided for by Decree No 1598/1995 on vehicle registration (asetus ajoneuvojen rekisteröinnistä (1598/1995)) of 18 December 1995, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring a transfer licence for the putting into circulation of vehicles lawfully registered and used in another Member State, as provided for by Decree No 1598/1995 on vehicle registration (asetus ajoneuvojen rekisteröinnistä (1598/1995)) of 18 December 1995, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.8




OSHKOSH CORPORATION


Summary of Cash Compensation for Non-Employee Directors


Cash compensation for non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Oshkosh Corporation, effective February 6, 2017, consists of payment of the following: (i) an annual retainer of $92,500 for each non-employee director; (ii) an additional annual retainer of $150,000 for the non-employee Chairman of the Board; (iii) an additional annual retainer of $13,500 for each Board Committee on which a non-employee directors serves during the calendar year; (iv) an additional annual retainer of $15,000 to the non-employee Chair of the Audit Committee and the Human Resources Committee of the Board; (v) an additional annual retainer of $10,000 to the non-employee Chair of the Governance Committee of the Board; and (vi) reimbursement of reasonable travel and related expenses incurred in attending Board and Board committee meetings as well as continuing education programs.
|  | 1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC; |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 1, 2014 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as Seller, Servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), Administrator and Custodian, U.S. Bank, NA, as Indenture Trustee, BMW FS Securities LLC, as Depositor, and BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2014-A, as Issuer and I have made, or have caused to be made under my supervision, a detailed review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations thereunder during the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016; |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, except as set forth below. |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49441-49442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20120]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Electricity Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, App. 2, and Section 102-3.65(a), Title 41, Code of 
Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee 
Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is 
hereby given that the Electricity Advisory

[[Page 49442]]

Committee's (EAC) charter has been renewed for a two-year period 
beginning on August 9, 2012.
    The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the 
Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability on 
programs to modernize the Nation's electric power system.
    Additionally, the renewal of the EAC has been determined to be 
essential to conduct Department of Energy business, and to be in the 
public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed 
upon the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Committee will 
continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, the rules and regulations in implementation of 
that Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Meyer, Designated Federal 
Officer at (202) 586-3118.

    Issued at Washington DC on August 9, 2012.
Carol A. Matthews,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-20120 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Exhibit 10.15


Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia
Vale do Rio Doce of our report dated February 2, 2001, relating to the
Financial Statements of Terminal de Vila Velha S.A. for the years ended
December 31, 2000 and 1999, which is included in such Annual Report.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Victoria, Brazil, June 27, 2002
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-21080 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-236-ALL

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco De La Cruz-Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. De La Cruz-Rodriguez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. De La Cruz-Rodriguez maintainsNo. 02-21080 -2- that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. De La Cruz-Rodriguez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sheila Clark LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7478

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

*277Sheila Clark Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sheila Clark Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reduce restitution payments. On appeal, we con-fíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lewis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Lewis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*