alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022472EN.01002401.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against HF

(Case C-435/22 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Principle ne bis in idem - Extradition agreement between the European Union and the United States of America - Extradition of a third-country national to the United States under a bilateral treaty concluded by a Member State - National who has been convicted by final judgment for the same acts and has served his sentence in full in another Member State)

(2022/C 472/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Party in the main proceedings

HF

Intervening party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding the extradition, by the authorities of a Member State, of a third-country national to another third country, where, first, that national has been convicted by final judgment in another Member State for the same acts as those referred to in the extradition request, and has been subject to the sentence imposed in that State, and, second, the extradition request is based on a bilateral extradition treaty limiting the scope of the principle ne bis in idem to judgments handed down in the requested Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.2
 
                        SECURITY CAPITAL PACIFIC TRUST
 
          COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                         AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
 
                         (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               1997(1)   1996     1995    1994    1993    1992
                               ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
<S>                            <C>     <C>      <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>
Earnings from operations.....  $24,686 $ 94,089 $ 81,696 $46,719 $23,191 $ 9,037
Add:
  Interest expense...........   61,153   35,288   19,584  19,442   3,923   3,214
                               ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Earnings as adjusted.........  $85,839 $129,377 $101,280 $66,161 $27,114 $12,251
                               ======= ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Combined fixed charges and
 preferred share dividends:
  Interest expense...........  $61,153 $ 35,288 $ 19,584 $19,442 $ 3,923 $ 3,214
  Capitalized interest.......   17,606   16,941   11,741   6,029   2,818     989
                               ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
    Total fixed charges......   78,759   52,229   31,325  25,471   6,741   4,203
Preferred share dividends....   19,384   24,167   21,823  16,100   1,341     --
                               ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends.........  $98,143 $ 76,396 $ 53,148 $41,571 $ 8,082 $ 4,203
                               ======= ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Ratio of earnings to combined
 fixed charges and preferred
 share dividends.............      0.9      1.7      1.9     1.6     3.4     2.9
                               ======= ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Earnings from operations for 1997 includes a one-time non-cash charge of
    $71.7 million associated with costs incurred in acquiring the Management
    Companies from an affiliate. Excluding this charge, the ratio of earnings
    to fixed charges for the year ended December 31, 1997 would be 1.6.
No. 11-1464.

#### White *v.*Mercado et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:97-cr-00100-BR)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s order

denying his petition for an arrest warrant and his motion to

intervene. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Ellerbe, No.

5:97-cr-00100-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2007). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**571 CA 14-01424**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

DONALD SCHULTZ AND KATHERINE SCHULTZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MICHAEL A. PARENTIS, M.D., AND KEITH C. STUBE, M.D., P.C., DOING BUSINESS AS KNEE CENTER OF WESTERN NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

CONNORS & VILARDO, LLP, BUFFALO (LAWRENCE J. VILARDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

DWYER, BLACK & LYLE, LLP, OLEAN (JEFFREY A. BLACK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M. Curran, J.), entered July 18, 2014. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendants Michael A. Parentis, M.D., and Keith C. Stube, M.D., P.C., doing business as Knee Center of Western New York, to set aside a jury verdict.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens , 155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:The attached files are the following docket-related documents:
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Economic and Regulatory Evaluation
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



     We have issued our report dated February 7, 1997, accompanying the
financial statements of Pinemont Bank contained in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus.  We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears
under the caption "Experts".


GRANT THORNTON LLP

Houston, Texas
May 28, 1997
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tangie Nicole CARROLL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4543

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 15, 2018

Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, LAW OFFICE OF CHIEGE O. KALU OKWARA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. *303Andrew Murray, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tangie Nicole Carroll appeals the 135-month sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). On appeal, Carroll challenges the drug quantity attributed to her. We affirm.

A defendant convicted of conspiring to distribute a controlled substance is accountable for all quantities of contraband with which she was directly involved and, in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity, all reasonably foreseeable quantities of contraband that-were in furtherance of the joint criminal conduct and were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.3 cmt. n.3 (2016). The Government must prove the drug quantity attributable to the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. *United States v. McGee,*736 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2013). A district court’s findings on drug quantity are generally factual in nature and are therefore reviewed by this court for clear error. *United States v. Flores-Alvarado,*779 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2015).

The district court adopted the amount of methamphetamine attributed to Carroll in the presentence report, 4.5 kilograms or more, over Carroll’s objection. The court found that the evidence cited by the government was both strong and corroborated. Such evidence included police reports describing Carroll’s confession, including her statements that, at one point, she was obtaining two pounds of methamphetamine every day or every other day from her supplier, and that, conservatively, she obtained an average of two pounds, six times per week, for approximately four weeks. These statements were corroborated by Carroll’s coconspirator, who detailed ten shipments of a pound or more of metham-phetamines.

We conclude that Carroll fails to illustrate clear error in the district court’s ruling on drug quantity. 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*
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER97-1741-000]


Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Notice of Filing

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 18, 1997, Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Company tendered for filing its supplement to the 
quarterly report of transactions for the period October 1, 1996 to 
December 31, 1996.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 18, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6115 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 53176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21273]

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

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, 
DC 20004-2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at 
(202) 694-7041 or by email at debbieb@dnfsb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires 
each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review 
boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of 
a senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the 
higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In 
addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance 
bonuses and pay increases.
    The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the 
members of the DNFSB SES PRB in this notice are drawn from the SES 
ranks of other agencies. The following persons comprise a standing 
roster to serve as members of the DNFSB SES PRB:

Christopher E. Aiello, Special Advisor to the Deputy to the Chairman 
and CFO, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
David M. Capozzi, Executive Director, United States Access Board
Cedric R. Hendricks, Associate Director for the Office of Legislative, 
Intergovernmental and Public Affairs, Court Services and Offender 
Supervision Agency
Barry S. Socks, Chief Operating Officer, National Capital Planning 
Commission
Dr. Michael L. Van Woert, Director of the National Science Board 
Office, National Science Foundation

    Dated: September 3, 2014.
Jessie H. Roberson,
Chair, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-21273 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
Exhibit 35.3  LOGO 2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123) Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of February 1, 2015 by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage
Securities Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as successor Special Servicer to Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Special Servicer, Park
Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, relating to the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2015-GC27 (CGCMT 2015-GC27) The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer
(the Special Servicer) herein certifies to the following:  1.
All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.  2.
A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of July 5, 2018
through December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.  3.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof
has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by:

/s/ Adam Singer



Date: March 1, 2019Adam Singer, Managing Director
• 

CLARIANT CORPORATION 

4000 Monroe Road 

28205 Charlotte, NC 

USA 

www.clariant.com 

CLARIANT• 

OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. E6428 ((202) 564-8930), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attn: 40 CFR 799.5089; 

Docket ID N urn ber EPA-HQ-OPPT -2009-0112 

HEAD OF PRODUCT STEWARDSHP 

DARIA CHURCH 

Phone 704 331 7715 

Mobile 704 502 2300 

Fax 704 330 1529 

daria.church@clariant.com 

August 3, 2012 34-9184-

Re: Test Rule Application for an Exemption 

EPA-HQ-OPPT -2009-0112 

Benzenesulfonyl Chloride 

CAS 98-09-9 

Dear OPPT Document Control Office: 

.-....:> 

0 

n 

--l 

::::» 

,._,..,.. 

--'"'" 

6 

Ul 

-....: 

Please accept this letter as an application for an exemption to the above-referenced §4 Test Rule 

for Benzenesulfonyl Chloride set out in 76 FR 65385-65410, published on Friday, October 21, 

2011. We request an exemption for all testing on the basis that the testing is already sponsored 

by Lanxess. 

Applicant: 

Clariant Corporation 

4000 Monroe Road 

Charlotte NC 28205 

Contact for applicant: 

Daria Church 

Clariant Corporation 

4000 Monroe Road 

Charlotte NC 28205 

Daria.church@clariant.com 

704-331-7715 

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 

40130000001 

Code of Federal Regulations I Title 40- Protection of Environment I Vol. 30 12004-07-0113 

Clariant understands that if this application is granted before the reimbursement period described 

in section 4(c)(3)(B) of TSCA expires, it must pay fair and equitable reimbursement to the person 

or persons who incurred or shared in the costs of complying with the requirement to submit data 

and upon whose data the granting of this application was based. 

s~~cr:_v 

Daria Church 

Head of Product Stewardship 

GONTAINS NO C81 

Page 1 of 1 

O:;u 

-orq 

uo 

-!r.-. 

o:::: 

~r.:: C)Cl 
•• .... ,1 LUIJ Ul llliU._,. .. nr• --- ~ • • 

ORIGIN ID QWG~ 

D~~l I~~ CHUFICH CL~IRI~NT C:ORPOR~T!ON 

40~0 MONROE RO~D 

CI:I~IRl.OTTE .. NC 28205 

UNJTI•D STnTES US 

[~~:[ 9340 2715 5524 

:xc RDVA 

SHIP D~TE: 100CT12 ~CTWGT: 0.2 LB C~D: 0SB9B59/C~FE2605 

BILL SENDER 

Expren 

[E) 

THU · 11 OCT A1 

PRIORITY OVERNIGHT 

20004 

DC-US DCA
# C_2022326EN.01000502.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 April 2022 — TP v Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA

(Case C-288/22)

(2022/C 326/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TP

Defendant: Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out an ‘economic’ activity within the meaning of Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) and more specifically, are percentage fees received by that person to be regarded as remuneration paid in return for services provided to that company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out an ‘economic’ activity within the meaning of Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) and more specifically, are percentage fees received by that person to be regarded as remuneration paid in return for services provided to that company?

| 2. | Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out his or her activity ‘independently’, within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out his or her activity ‘independently’, within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MELVIN MURRELL , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 2 4

- 1372

[ August 15, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 0 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael Usan , Judge;
L.T. Case No s

. 10

- 8685CF10A and 11

- 18378CF10A

.

Melvin Murrell

, Century , pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URI A M

.
Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J.

, M AY and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5617]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 27, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in 
Appendix A to the filing, to be effective April 1, 1997.
    National Fuel states that this filing is to supplement its December 
23, 1996 and February 24, 1997, Section 4 filing at Docket No. RP97-
201. National Fuel states that the purpose of the filing is to insert 
the same tariff changes proposed in its February 24, 1997 filing into 
the tariff sheets which will be proposed in National Fuel's next GISB 
compliance filing in Docket No. RP97-1.
    National states that it is serving copies of the filing upon all 
parties to this proceeding, firm customers and interested state 
commissions. National states that copies are also being served on all 
interruptible customers as of the date of the filing.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5617 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M