alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marco Antonio CASTRO-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11549 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed 02/07/2018

Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S.' Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Helen Miller Lig-gett, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM *

Defendant-Appellant Marco Antonio Castro-Contreras appeals the 51-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. Although this sentence falls within the guidelines range in effect on the date of his sentencing, Castro-Contreras asserts that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court did not consider then-pending amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.

As Castro-Contreras raises these arguments for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). “A sentencing court must apply the version of the sentencing guidelines effective at the time of sentencing unless application of that version would violate the *Ex Post Facto*Clause of the Constitution.” *United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez,*488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); *see also*U.S.S.G. § lBl.ll(a) (“The court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced.”); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii) and (5)(B) (requiring district court to consider Guidelines and policy statements, and any amendments thereto, that are “in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced”). Therefore, Castro-Contreras fails to show that the district court plainly erred by failing to consider amendments to § 2L1.2 which were not yet in effect. *See Puckett,*556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

Castro-Contreras also contends that his sentence violates due process because his indictment did not allege the prior conviction on which the 8 U.S.C. ,§ 1326(b)(2) sentence enhancement was based. He correctly concedes, however, that this argument is foreclosed under *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Juan GOMEZ-LORENZO; Manuel Gomez-Cua Petitioners v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1240

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 6, 2018

Filed: March 13, 2018

Juan Gomez-Lorenzo, Pro Se

Carl H. McIntyre, Brendan Thomas Moore, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Juan Gomez-Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of his minor son Manuel Gorhez-Cua, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge, which denied his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Hav*612ing jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), this court denies the petition.

This court concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-Lorenzo was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal because he failed to show that he was unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala due to persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. *See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder,*713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); *Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder,*709 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2013) (asylum requirements); *Ngure v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir. 2004) (requirements for withholding of removal). This court also concludes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. *See De Castro-Gutierrez,*713 F.3d at 381 (requirements for protection under CAT).

The petition is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. Gomez-Lorenzo brought the derivative application on behalf of his son for asylum only. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a). Because Manuel’s application is derivative of Gomez-Lorenzo’s application, all subsequent references are to Gomez-Lorenzo.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961107312-7012-02; I.D. 022697D]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific 
Ocean Perch in the Eastern Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in 
the Eastern Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding 
the 1997 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in this 
area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 27, 
1997, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations 
implementing the FMP at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 
679.
    The TAC of Pacific ocean perch for the Eastern Aleutian District 
was established by the Final 1997 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish 
for the BSAI (62 FR 7168, February 18, 1997) as 3,240 metric tons (mt). 
See Sec. 679.20(c)(3)(iii).
    In accordance with Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska 
Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the TAC for 
Pacific ocean perch specified for the Eastern Aleutian District will 
soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing 
a directed fishing allowance of 3,040 mt, and is setting aside the 
remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish 
fisheries. In accordance with Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 
Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will soon be 
reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific 
ocean perch in the Eastern Aleutian District.
    Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be 
found in the regulations at Sec. 679.20(e) and (f).

Classification

    This action is required by Sec. 679.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 27, 1997.
Gary Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-5301 Filed 2-27-97; 5:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
```
# C_2022073EN.01006302.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/63

---

Action brought on 28 December 2021 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTOPTICS)

(Case T-800/21)

(2022/C 73/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HYPERLIGHTOPTICS — Application for registration No 18 335 960

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2021 in Case R 1166/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare European Union trademark application No 18 335 960 ‘HYPERLIGHTOPTICS’ to be eligible for registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare European Union trademark application No 18 335 960 ‘HYPERLIGHTOPTICS’ to be eligible for registration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Breach of the principle of equality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of equality.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-054, A-588-604]


Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished and Unfinished, and Parts 
Thereof From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Less Than Four Inches 
in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof From Japan; Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limits for the preliminary results of the 1995-1996 administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty order (A-588-604) and finding (A-588-
054) on tapered roller bearings from Japan. These reviews cover 5 
manufacturers/exporters and resellers of the subject merchandise to the 
United States and the period October 1, 1995, through September 30, 
1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Owenby at (202) 482-0145, 
Charles Ranado at (202) 482-3518, or Stephanie Arthur at (202) 482-
6312, AD/CVD Enforcement Office Eight, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
these reviews within the normal time frame, the Department is extending 
the time limits for completion of the preliminary results until 
September 1, 1997 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. 
See Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa, on file in 
Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. The deadline for the final 
results of this review will continue to be 120 days after publication 
of the preliminary results.
    These extensions are in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: February 26, 1997.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 97-5405 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Dustin Wayne Glenn

A ppellate case number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0 195

- C R

Trial court case number: CV

- 70369

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 3 of Galveston County

Appell ant

, Dustin Wayne Glen, has filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court’s “Findings and Order” indicates that the court considered “the transcript and exhibits from Dustin Wayne Glenn v. State cause numbers 12CR2237 and 12CR2238 motion for new trial hearing held in the 405 th District Court in September 2013 . . . .” Accordingly, w e direct the Clerk of this Court to copy the supplemental

reporter ’s record of the September 9, 2013 motion for new trial hearing

, filed in this Court on November 2 2 , 2013 in cause number s 01

- 13

- 00 640

- C R and 01

- 13

- 00 641

- C R

, and file the cop y in cause number 01

- 14

- 00 195

- CR

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Date: October 2 8 , 2014
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 
 Compensation Arrangements With Outside Directors 
 Outside Directors are
paid annual retainers, a portion of which is paid in cash and a portion of which is paid in restricted share units. They are also reimbursed expenses for each Board meeting. The annual retainer and the portion of the annual retainer paid in
restricted share units are determined by or upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and are set forth in the Company’s proxy statement each year. 

Committee chairs are paid annual retainers in the form of restricted share units. All committee members are reimbursed expenses for each
committee meeting. The chair annual retainers are also determined by or upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, and are set forth in the Company’s proxy statement each year. 

Restricted share units are granted to each new director on the date of such director’s appointment or election to the Board, and
such awards, if applicable, are set forth in the Company’s proxy statement each year.
# C_2021228EN.01003401.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/34

---

Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO — R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia (LOPEZ DE HARO)

(Case T-210/21)

(2021/C 228/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia SA (Haro, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark LOPEZ DE HARO — Application for registration No 17 909 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 in Case R 1741/2020-5

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant EU trade mark application No 17 909 326 LÓPEZ DE HARO (figurative mark) for goods in Class 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant EU trade mark application No 17 909 326 LÓPEZ DE HARO (figurative mark) for goods in Class 33;

| — | order any party opposing the present action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any party opposing the present action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
SERVED: MAY 7, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSEPH MARIDON 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012WP190142) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

1e A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

F ederaf Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Joseph Maridon, Sr., Respondent 

9212 E. Frederick Ave 

Spokane, W A 99206-4303 

ONE COPY 

Jospeph R. Maridon, Jr., Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Naomi Tsuda, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific R#gion, P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7100 

FAJ{: 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: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F AJ{: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

(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
No. 11-10478.

#### Stanley *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6487

GREGORY T. GARY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CHARLES B. HANNA, Henrico Police Detective, Individual and

Official Capacity; BILL KEAUKER, Police Investigator, 

Individual and Official Capacity; J.D. HEDRICK, HPD 

Investigator, Individual and Official Capacity; J.W. ENSOR, 

Reporting Officer, Individual and Official Capacity; G.S. 

RUSSELL, JR., Review Supervisor, Individual and Official 

Capacity, 

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00104-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory T. Gary, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory T. Gary appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1) (2006) for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Gary v. Hanna, No. 2:10-cv-00104-JBF-FBS 

(E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2010). We further deny Gary’s motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint. 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
# C_2023045EN.01000403.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/4

---

Appeal brought on 18 August 2022 by Compass Tex Ltd against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2022 in Case T-704/21, Compass Tex Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-550/22 P)

(2023/C 45/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Compass Tex Ltd (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 7 December 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
10/27/2005 Revised Exposure Report Page / of 7~

This report revised at request of Virginia Lee of CCD on 10/26/2005. Assessor: FMessner

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
10/27/2005 Revised Exposure Report Page eZof Z

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2
# C_2023235EN.01000502.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — IT v État belge

(Case C-365/22, (1) État belge (VAT — Vehicles sold for parts))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Margin scheme - Article 311 - Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ - End-of-life vehicles sold for parts)

(2023/C 235/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IT

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive No 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax,

must be interpreted as meaning that definitively end-of-life motor vehicles acquired by an undertaking from the persons referred to in Article 314 of that directive and intended to be sold ‘for parts’ without the parts having been removed are second-hand goods within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive where, first, they still include parts which maintain the functionalities that they possessed when new so that they can be reused as such or after repair and, secondly, it is established that those vehicles remained in the same economic cycle because of that reuse of parts.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.

---
#### IN the INTEREST OF: S.-A.V.C., Minor

514 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-AP-0001219-2016 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
**Exhibit32.2**

**Certification Pursuant To Section1350 Of Chapter 63 Of 18 U.S.C.**

**AsAdopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002/SEC Rule****13a-14(b)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OrchestraTherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), whichthis written statement accompanies, I, Michael K. Green, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated:  October 2, 2007 | /s/ Michael K. Green                                |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Michael K. Green                                    |
|                    | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----