alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted September 16, 2016,

affirmed March 22, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*CORY HOWARD THARP, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Marion County Circuit Court

14C40185; A158640

391 P3d 931

Anna Melichar, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*547PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of delivery of marijuana for consideration, ORS 475.860(2)(a) (2013), *amended by*Or Laws 2015, ch 1, § 78, Or Laws 2015, ch 614, § 122, Or Laws 2016, ch 24, § 44, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop. A police officer saw defendant driving a car with expired registration tags, so the officer stopped defendant for the violation. During the course of the traffic stop, the officer developed probable cause to believe that the car contained marijuana. The officer’s ensuing search of the car led to the discovery of marijuana, pipes, and a scale. Defendant moved to suppress that evidence arguing, among other things, that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement was inapplicable because the officer had stopped defendant for a traffic violation and not for a crime and, accordingly, the warrantless search violated his rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied defendant’s suppression motion, concluding that the automobile exception applied to the search. Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of marijuana for consideration and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. *See*ORS 135.335(3).

On appeal, defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in *State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak,*351 Or 179, 192, 263 P3d 336 (2011), limits the automobile exception to vehicular stops in which an officer first encounters or stops a moving vehicle in connection with a crime. Thus, according to defendant, the automobile exception does not apply in circumstances in which officers lawfully stop a driver of a moving vehicle for a traffic violation and, in the course of the stop, develop probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. We recently rejected that argument in *State v. Bliss,*283 Or App 833, 842, 390 P3d 1099 (2017), and, for the reasons stated there, we reject defendant’s argument.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the transition period from
February 3, 2002 to March 30, 2002 and November 3,
2002 to January 4, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
A. Andruskevich, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: February 27, 2003

/s/ Thomas A. Andruskevich




29
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY L. BRENT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Ric hard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-83-NN, CA-95-141-4) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney L. Brent, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Hardwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to vacate sentence and to voluntarily dismiss his motion to vacate sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brent , Nos. CR-93-83-NN;CA-95-141-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 1996). 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
#### IN RE: PROBOKNOW, LLC, Appellant

2017-1217

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 19, 2018

Jeremy Adam Schachter, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Theodore H. Davis, Jr., Atlanta, GA.

Benjamin T. Hickman, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Christina Hieber.

(Newman, Dyk, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# C_2021422EN.01002901.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/29

---

Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Pierre Lannier v EUIPO — Pierre Lang Trading (PL)

(Case T-530/21)

(2021/C 422/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Lannier (Ernolsheim-lès-Saverne, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pierre Lang Trading GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PL — Application for registration No 16 176 992

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2021 in Case R 1915/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal brought against the opposition decision to be inadmissible because the statement of grounds was not submitted within the time limit; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal brought against the opposition decision to be inadmissible because the statement of grounds was not submitted within the time limit;

| — | annul the contested decision is so far as it states that the mark applied for is similar to the earlier mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision is so far as it states that the mark applied for is similar to the earlier mark;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order the company Pierre Lang GmbH to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the company Pierre Lang GmbH to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 22(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, and of Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 22(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, and of Article 67 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.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the use in this Amendment No. 6 to Registration
Statement on Form S-4 of our reports dated May 2, 2002, except as to Notes 20
and 21 to the consolidated financial statements, which are as of November 18,
2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Hanover Compression Limited Partnership, which appear in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
February 11, 2003
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HERBERT EARL STILLEY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case Nos. 2D16-3265

) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 18, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Thomas Krug, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and 

Richard J. D'Amico, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
No. 11-9072.

#### Foust *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & AssetReceiving Corporation 

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2015-DC1 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of March 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

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

 

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

 

 

 February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

/s/Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 IN T HE UNIT E D S T A T E S DIS T RICT CO UR T

F OR T HE E A ST E RN DIS T RICT OF CA L IF OR NIA

J OSE PH A

NTHONY BR OW

N,

Pet i t i o n er,

v s

.

U.S

. A

. ,

Re s po n den t

.

/ 1:11- cv -01586- GSA -( HC )

OR DER T RA

NSF E RR ING CA SE T O T HE

UNIT E D S T A T E S DIS T RICT CO UR T F OR

T HE DIS T RICT OF CO L UM BIA

Pet i t i o n er, a s t at e pri s o n er pro cee d i ng p r o s e

, has f i l ed a h ab eas co rpus act i o n pursuan t t o 28

U.S

. C. § 2254.

T h e f ederal v en

ue s t at ut e requi r e s t ha t a ci v i l act i o n

, o t h er t h an o n e b as ed o n di v ersi t y

j uri s di ct i o n

, b e b ro ugh

t o n l y i n “ (1) a j udi ci al di s t ri ct wh ere an y def en dan t resi des

, i f al l def

en dan t s resi de

i n t h e sam e st at e, (2) a j udi ci al di s t ri ct i n wh i ch a s ub s t an

t i al part o f t h e ev en

t s o r o m i s s i o n s gi v i n g ri s e

t o t h e cl ai m o ccurred, o r a s ub s t an

t i al part o f t h e pro pert y t h at i s t h e s ub j ect o f t h e act i o n i s s i

t uat ed, o r

(3) a j udi ci al di s t ri ct i

n wh i ch an

y def en dan t m ay b e f o un d, i f t h ere i s n o di s t ri ct i n wh i ch t h e act i o n m ay

o t h erwi s e b e b ro ugh

t

. ” 28 U.S

. C. § 1391(b ).

In t h i s cas e, t h e pet i

t i o n er i s c ha l l en gi

n g a co n v i ct i o n f ro m W as h i

n gt o n D.C. Superi o r Co urt

,

wh i ch i s i n t h e Di s t ri ct o f Co l

um b i a. T h eref

o re, t h e pet i

t i o n s h o ul d h av e b een f

i l ed i n t h e Un i t ed St at es

-1-1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Di s t ri ct Co urt f

o r t h e Di s t ri ct o f Co l

um b i a. In t h e i

n t eres t o f j us t i ce, a f

ederal co urt m ay t ran s f

er a cas e

f i l ed i n t h e wro n g di s t ri ct t o t h e co rr ect di s t ri ct

. See 28 U.S

. C. § 1406(a) ; St arn es v

. M cGui re, 512 F

. 2d

918, 932 (D. C. Ci

r. 1974).

A cco rdi n gl y

, I T IS HERE BY OR

DERE D t h at t h i s m at t er i s t ran s f err ed t o t h e Un i

t ed St at es

Di s t ri ct Co urt f

o r t h e Di s t ri ct o f Co l

um b i a.

IT IS SO OR

DERE D.

Dated: 

### S e p t e m b e r 2 6

, 2 0 1 1 /s/ 

### G a r y S

. A u s t i n

23eh d0 UNIT E D S T A T E S M A GIS T RA T E J UDGE

-2-
# C_2023173EN.01001001.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/10

---

Appeal brought on 16 September 2022 by Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2022 in Case T-306/20, Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González v EUIPO — Irlande et Ornua (La Irlandesa 1943)

(Case C-605/22 P)

(2023/C 173/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA (represented by: J. García Domínguez, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Irlande et Ornua Co-operative Ltd

By order of 8 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González should bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 *








In connection with the Annual Report of PGI Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the  period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Laurence A. Schiffer, 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 to the best of my knowledge:








(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer


Laurence A. Schiffer


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                              March 21, 2011








*
A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John ASIRIFI Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1985

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 28, 2018

Filed: March 7, 2018

Allison J. Heimes, Lauren Schmoke, Ka-saby *&*Nicholls, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Raya Jarawan, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Jeffery R. Leist, Carl H. McIntyre, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Asirifi, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying him asylum and withholding of removal.1

*532Upon de novo review, this court concludes that Asirifi has not shown that the IJ committed a fundamental procedural error, and thus his due process claim fails.See Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; to establish due process violation, alien must demonstrate both fundamental procedural error and prejudice). The record reveals that the IJ complied with the federal law and regulations governing the conduct of removal proceedings, and that Asirifi received a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, offer arguments, and develop the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.10(a), .11(c)(1); Tun v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 1014, 1025 (8th Cir. 2007) (alien seeking immigration relief is entitled to fundamentally fair removal hearing under Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause); Al Khouri v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 461, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004) (IJ must fully develop the record but is not required to act as alien’s advocate or lawyer).

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

1

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Asirifi's claim that this court should grant him relief under the Convention Against Torture, as he failed to raise it during his agency proceedings. See Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 616-17 (8th Cir. 2014).
# C_2021138EN.01004001.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/40

---

Action brought on 29 January 2021 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission

(Case T-61/21)

(2021/C 138/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);

| — | order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.

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-53/21, EVH v Commission.

---
# C_2021349EN.01004301.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/43

---

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-392/21)

(2021/C 349/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11060

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEONARD MILES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-109-4

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leonard Miles has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Miles has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk