alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9001 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that a Member of Congress 

convicted of certain felony offenses relating to sexual abuse shall not 

be eligible for retirement benefits based on that individual’s Member 

service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. CROW (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, and Ms. SPEIER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, for a 

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that a 

Member of Congress convicted of certain felony offenses 

relating to sexual abuse shall not be eligible for retirement benefits based on that individual’s Member service, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting Annuities 

5 for Sexual Abusers in Congress Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9001 IH

1 SEC. 2. FORFEITURE OF CSRS OR FERS ANNUITY BASED ON 

2 SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AFTER 

3 CONVICTION OF FELONY SEXUAL ABUSE. 

4 (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—Section 

5 8332(o)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A)(iii)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub8 clause (I); 

9 (B) by striking the period at the end of 

10 subclause (II) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(III) is committed after the date of enact13 ment of the Prohibiting Annuities for Sexual 

14 Abusers in Congress Act and is described in 

15 subparagraph (B)(xxxii).’’; and 

16 (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end 

17 the following: 

18 ‘‘(xxxii) An offense under chapter 109A of title 

19 18 (relating to sexual abuse).’’. 

20 (b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.— 

21 Section 8411(l)(2)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is 

22 amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 

23 the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of an offense described 

24 in section 8332(o)(2)(B)(xxxii), after the date of enact25 ment of the Prohibiting Annuities for Sexual Abusers in 

26 Congress Act.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 9001 IH

1 (c) APPLICATION.—For purposes of applying section 

2 8332(o) or 8411(l) of title 5, United States Code, the 

3 amendments made by this section shall apply to any act 

4 or omission occurring after the date of enactment of this 

5 Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
No. 11-10646.

#### L. F. *v.*Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services.

Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.
tnib_ex1016.htm



Exhibit 10.16


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 


7
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-22-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-24-1996
<CASH>                                           2,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,318
<PP&E>                                          63,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,513
<BONDS>                                          2,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,357
<SALES>                                         59,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,283
<CGS>                                           30,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,820)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,726)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,726)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)
        





</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

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 A.P. Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald J. Prentki, President and 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

August 4, 2009



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    Ronald J. Prentki             
|Ronald J. Prentki,                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

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 A.P. Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John B.
Whelan, Chief Financial 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

August 4, 2009



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    John B. Whelan  
|John B. Whelan,        
|Chief Financial Officer
Opinion issued June 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00149-CR

NO. 01-15-00150-CR

NO. 01-15-00151-CR

———————————

JAMES E. GUZMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 1974171, 1974172, and 2001637

MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

Pursuant to his agreements with the State, appellant, James E. Guzman, 

pleaded guilty to three separate misdemeanor offenses of assault,

1

two of which 

were enhanced by a prior conviction of the felony offense of assault on a family 

member. The trial court accepted the plea agreements, assessed appellant’s 

punishment at confinement for 120 days for each offense, with the sentences to run 

concurrently, and certified that these are plea-bargained cases and appellant has no 

right of appeal. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in each case. The State has 

filed a motion to dismiss each appeal for want of jurisdiction.

We grant the State’s motions and dismiss the appeals.

In a plea-bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that 

were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after obtaining the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 44.02 (Vernon

2006); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification 

showing that the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, in each cause, the trial court’s certification is included in the record 

and states that the case is a plea-bargained case and appellant has no right of 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record in each case supports the trial 

court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1) (Vernon 2011).
3

2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss these appeals. 

See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of 

appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who pleabargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited 

appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); see also 

Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 77–82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding 

voluntariness of guilty plea may not be contested on direct appeal following

plea-bargain agreement).

Accordingly, we dismiss each appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss all 

other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Jennings, Bland and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2015-DC1 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 29, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,861
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,861
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,080
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           711
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,895)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2023261EN.01003301.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/33

---

Judgement of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Chocolates Lacasa Internacional v EUIPO — Esquitino Madrid (Conguitos)

(Case T-339/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Conguitos - Earlier EU word mark Conguitos - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for invalidity - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/46)

Language of the procedure: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA (Utebo, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, J. Vicente Martínez and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mariano Esquitino Madrid (Elche, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 601/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---
#### Robert GARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOHAMMADI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-56518

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 2018 *

Filed March 7, 2018

Robert Garber, Pro Se

Paul L. Winnemore, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Garber appeals pro se the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, alleging police use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on Gar-ber’s excessive force claim against Officer Hamed Mohammadi. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); *Reed v. Lieurance,*863 F.3d 1196, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). The evidence, including a police videotape, showed that officers’ use of force in detaining and handcuffing and hobbling Garber and transporting him to a psychiatric hospital was objectively reasonable under the circumstances because his conduct posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers, the public, and himself, and there, was no evidence, such as medical records or photographs, of injury to Garber. *See Zion v. Cty. of Orange,*874 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2017).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the time for Garber’s cross-examination of Officer Mohammadi, *See*Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); *Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co.,*397 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police videotape. *See Cheffins v. Stewart,*825 F.3d 588, 596 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion and *750showing of prejudice). Finally, Garber has established no prejudicial error in the conduct of discovery. *See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,*342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
SERVED: JUNE 19 2012 ' 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BUTTE STEEL & FABRICATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(CivilPenalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0199 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on July 12 and 13,2012, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court: Room 2-1350, Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties 

should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service. 

Attachment - Service List · ,,_ 

1 
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 2W10001 

Butte Steel & Fabrication, Inc. 

Attn: JeffBrochheuser, President 

13290 Contractors Drive 

Chico, CA 95973 

TEL: 530-893-1113 

FAX: 530-893-3014 

ONE COPY 

Christopher Merrill, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7.3 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7105 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M~20 · 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.(E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant· 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0199 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · .. , 

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,406
<PP&E>                                          67,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,519
<SALES>                                         32,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,012
<CGS>                                           15,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  73
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,015)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,365)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        


</TABLE>
#### Delmer M. ACKELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy M. OLSEN, In His Official Capacity, the State of Alaska; Goldrich Mining Company, FKA Squaw Gold Mining Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35707

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*666Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Delmer M. Ackels, Pro Se

Rachel L. Witty, State of Alaska; Department of Law, Civil Division, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee Randy M. Olsen

Gary A. Zipkin, Esquire, Guess *&*Rudd P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Goldrich Mining Company

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Delmer M. Ackels appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a mining dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ackels assigns as error the district court’s orders denying his motions for default judgment, and we review for an abuse of discretion. *Eitel v. McCool,*782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ackels’s motions for default judgment because several factors supported the denial of default. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; *Eitel,*782 F.2d at 1471-72 (setting forth factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ackels’s motion to submit a CD-R photo disk as an exhibit to his complaint. *See FTC v. Gill,*265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has broad discretion to control its docket).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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