alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51109

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JOSE ROLANDO DESANTIAGO,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:14-CR-1754-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Desantiago claims the within-guidelines term of 60 months 

 

* 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

June 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51109 Document: 00513566399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2016
No. 15-51109

2

imposed on his conviction of illegal reentry was greater than necessary to meet 

the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He further avers that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not 

empirically based, that the sentence fails to account for the nonviolent nature 

of his offense, and that the guideline range does not reflect his cultural 

assimilation.

This court reviews a sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 

751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,

338 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360

(5th Cir. 2009). Although Desantiago contends that this court should not apply 

the presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis, 

he concedes that that argument is foreclosed by Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

at 366. Desantiago’s theory regarding cultural assimilation is also insufficient 

to rebut the presumption. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 

807 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, we have rejected the notion that the guidelines 

overstate the seriousness of the offense of illegal reentry. See United States v. 

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. JuarezDuarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Because Desantiago has failed to demonstrate that the district court did 

not consider a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight,

that it gave significant weight to a factor it should have discounted, or that it

made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors, he has 

not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 

589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-51109 Document: 00513566399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2016
# C_2021471EN.01005801.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/58

---

Action brought on 28 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)

(Case T-625/21)

(2021/C 471/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Automobiles Citroën (Poissy, France) (represented by: C. Weyl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polestar Holding AB (Götenborg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of two inverted chevrons) — European Union trade mark No 16 896 532

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 504/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0583 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TAYLOR JAY DAMM,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 12 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2024

05/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0583
# C_2021252EN.01003001.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/30

---

Action brought on 7 May 2021 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO (BACK-2-NATURE)

(Case T-248/21)

(2021/C 252/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark BACK-2-NATURE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 485 655

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2021 in Case R 1699/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022011EN.01003001.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/30

---

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Skryba v Council

(Case T-581/21)

(2022/C 11/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarheï Skryba (Marialivo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.

---
# PPTR Comments
EX 10.8   Stanford Place - First Amend




Exhibit 10.8


REINSTATEMENT AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT




THIS  REINSTATEMENT  AND  FIRST  AMENDMENT  TO  PURCHASE  AND SALE AGREEMENT  ("Amendment") is executed effective as of January 7, 2014 ("Amendment  Effective Date"), by and between TIAA REALTY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (formerly known as TlAA Realty, Inc., a Delaware corporation) ("Seller"), and BEHRINGER  HARVARD OPPORTUNITY OP II LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Purchaser").


RECITALS:


Whereas, Seller and Purchaser heretofore entered into that certain Purchase and Sale
Agreement dated December 10,2013 (the "Agreement");  and


Whereas, Seller and Purchaser now desire to reinstate the Agreement and modify certain terms of the Agreement as set forth herein; and


Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Purchaser and Seller hereby agree as follows:


AGREEMENTS:


1.        Recitals.    The  recitals set  forth  above  are  true  and  correct  and  are  hereby incorporated in their entirety.


2.        Definitions.  Capitalized terms used but otherwise not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


3.     Reinstatement.     The  Agreement (as  amended hereby) is reinstated as of  the
Amendment Effective Date.


4.     Due Diligence Period.  The Due Diligence Period is hereby extended until 5:00
P.M. (New York, New York time) on January 23,2014.


5.     Closing Date. The Closing Date is hereby extended to February 18, 2014.


6.        Ratification.   Except as herein amended, the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed in its entirety by Purchaser and Seller.


7.        Countemarts; Email  Signatures.    This  Amendment may  be  executed in  any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original, and all of such counterparts shall constitute one Amendment.  To facilitate execution of this Amendment, Purchaser and Seller may 





execute and exchange by e-mail as a portable document format or other electronic imaging, counterparts of the signature page, which shall be deemed original signatures for all purposes.


[Signature Page Follows]




2







IN  WITNESS   WHEREOF,   this   Amendment   has  been   duly   executed   as  of   the
Amendment Effective Date.
PURCHASER: BEHRINGER HARVARD
OPPORTUNITY OP II LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
BHO II, Inc., its general partner


By:   /s/MICHAEL J. O'HANLON
Name:  Michael J. O'Hanlon
Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President








[Signatures Continue on Next Page]









SELLER:


TIAA REALTY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company






By: /s/LYNETTE M. PINEDA
Name:  Lynette M. Pineda
Title:  Assistant Secretary
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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report).
I, Han Daqing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


By: /s/ Han Daqing
-----------------------
Han Daqing
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2005
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00547-CV

In re Charles Raymond Lee Jr

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: November 5, 2021
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  DTRA Leadership             
  -  DTRA History             
  -  Mission             
  -  Strategic Initiatives             
  -  Foreign Malign Influence             
  -  Agency Overview Brief (pdf)             
  -  Agency Financial Report 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Your Civilian Career             
  -  Your Military Career             
  -  Welcome Aboard 
-  Business    -  DTRA Contract Award Data             
  -  Office of Small Business             
  -  Mentor Protege Program 
-  News & Media    -  Press Center 
-  Contact Us		 
-  Joint Operations Center		 

# DTRA FOIA Reading Room Archive

# FOIA Request 20-063 Third Interim 

##                 COVID Information            

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Links

20-063 Third Interim PDF

COVID
# Journal officiel C 168/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 168 |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 61e année15 mai 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 168

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

61e année15 mai 2018

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avis |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| 2018/C 168/01 | Appel à candidatures pour l'initiative WiFi4EU (promotion de la connectivité internet dans les communautés locales), dans le cadre du mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe dans le domaine des réseaux transeuropéens de télécommunications [programme de travail annuel MIE 2017 modifié — décision d'exécution C(2017) 7732 de la Commission] | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

2018/C 168/01

Appel à candidatures pour l'initiative WiFi4EU (promotion de la connectivité internet dans les communautés locales), dans le cadre du mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe dans le domaine des réseaux transeuropéens de télécommunications [programme de travail annuel MIE 2017 modifié — décision d'exécution C(2017) 7732 de la Commission]

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

| 15.5.2018 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2018

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 168/1

---

Appel à candidatures pour l'initiative WiFi4EU (promotion de la connectivité internet dans les communautés locales), dans le cadre du mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe dans le domaine des réseaux transeuropéens de télécommunications

[programme de travail annuel MIE 2017 modifié — décision d'exécution C(2017) 7732 de la Commission]

(2018/C 168/01)

La Commission européenne, direction générale des réseaux de communication, du contenu et des technologies, lance l'appel à candidatures suivant pour l'initiative WiFi4EU, en vue de l'octroi de subventions à des projets, conformément aux priorités et objectifs définis dans le programme de travail 2017 modifié, dans le domaine des réseaux transeuropéens de télécommunications dans le cadre du mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe (MIE).

Les candidatures sont attendues pour le premier appel (WIFI4EU-2017-1) relatif à la promotion de la connectivité internet dans les communautés locales.

Le budget indicatif total disponible pour les candidatures retenues au titre de cet appel s'élève à 17 745 000 EUR.

La date limite de soumission des candidatures est fixée au 15 juin 2018.

Les candidatures doivent être soumises via le portail WiFi4EU: https://www.wifi4eu.eu/

La documentation relative à l'appel susmentionné est disponible sur le site web de l'INEA: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/wifi4eu

---
| (logo) Grant Thornton |
|-----------------------|
|                  | **Grant Thornton LLP**

201 S College Street, 

Suite 2500

Charlotte, NC 28244-0100

 

T 704.632.3500

F 704.334.7701

www.GrantThornton.com |

 

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors,LLC:

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s CertificationRegarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria(“Management’s Report”), that **Trimont Real EstateAdvisors, LLC** (the “Company” or “Trimont”) compliedwith the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Primary SubservicerPlatform (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31,2016, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and1122(d)(4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. The Platformconsists of the asset-backed transactions and securities defined by Managementin Exhibit B of Management’s Report. Management is responsible for theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion aboutthe Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for thePlatform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selectedasset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform andevaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to thosetransactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing maynot have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transactionor security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to theperiod covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examinationdoes not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the yearended December 31, 2016 for the Primary Subservicer Platform is fairly stated,in all material respects.

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

February 24, 2017

 

 

**Grant Thornton LLP**

U.S. member firm of GrantThornton International Ltd
# Minority Groups

- U.S. Department of Education Issues Guidance on Federal Funds to Support Afghan and Other Newcomer Students Today, the U.S.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ramon Vasquez, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1770 C.D. 2016

:

City of Reading and :

Thomas K. Flemming :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 27, 2017, having considered appellant’s application 

for reargument, the application is denied.
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Brian Alleman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Simtek Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Simtek Corporation.



/s/ Brian Alleman
-------------------------------
Brian Alleman
Chief Financial Officer

November 9, 2007
### SERVED: OCTOBER 

### 23, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC


### MOUNTAINAVIATION FAA DOCKET No. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) DMS FAA-2012-0875 

## ZuiZOCT.2LI L\,

### q:t~S



### ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION.

FOREXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") has asked for an extension oftime to comply with the initial discovery requests ofRespondent Mountain Aviation ("Respondent"), currently due by October 26,2012, pending the undersigned's ruling on Complainant's Motion for Decision. Respondent's answer to the Motion for Decision, which hadbeen filed on October 18, 2012, is due- allowing for delivery by mail- no later than November 5, 2012. Myruling will issue some time after that date. Complainant's request is reasonabJe. The ruling on Complainant's Motidn for Decision, ifit favors Complainant, could render discovery moot in whole or in part. Moreover, a temporary suspension ofthe discovery deadline will notunduly prejudice Respondent. As such, Complainant's motion for an extension oftime to answer Respondent's

### 2 discovery requests until after such time as a ruling on its Motion for Decision is issued is hereby GRANTED. A new discovery deadline, should itbe necessary, may be agreed to bytheparties or set by subsequent order. ·

# t~c.~~ Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service List3



### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention:
. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Kent S. Jackson, 

### Respondent's Counsel Jackson & Wade, LLC 2168 Midland Drive Shawnee, KS 66218 TEL: 913-338-1700 FAJ(: 913-338-1755 

### ONE COPY

Kyle E. Lomazow, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAJ(: 425;..227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative·LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0875 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal · Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.