alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis MEDINA-AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50284 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 9, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

*435PER CURIAM: *

Jose Luis Medina-Avalos appeals the 77-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Medina-Avalos argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because he was sentenced based on a prior conviction that was not charged in his indictment. He reasons that his sentence should have been no greater than the two-year statutory maximum provided under Section 1326(a).

Acknowledging that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), MedinarAvalos contends that the Supreme Court has questioned that ruling in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). He therefore wishes to preserve his claim for possible future review.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

As Medina-Avalos concedes, his sole claim is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres. Apprendi*and *AUeyne*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); *United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008).

In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. 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.
# C_2023015EN.01002901.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2022 — RK v Ministerstvo zdravotnictví

(Case C-659/22)

(2023/C 15/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RK

Defendant: Ministerstvo zdravotnictví

Question referred

Does the verification, using the national ‘čTečka’ application, of the validity of interoperable Covid-19 vaccination, test, or recovery certificates, issued pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are used by the Czech Republic for national purposes, amount to automated processing of personal data pursuant to Article 4, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27. April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), and hence, is the material scope of the General Data Protection Regulation thus established, pursuant to Article 2(1) of that regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.

---
No. 11-10703.

#### Bludworth *v.*Evans, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[NM-070-1320-01; NM-11670, NM-8128, NM-8130]


Notice of Coal Action; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability, Cost Estimate Document (CED) for the 
Thermal Energy Preference Right Lease Applications (PRLAs) San Juan 
County, New Mexico.

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

SUMMARY: The PRLA process requires that a CED be prepared and made 
available to the public. The CED estimates the costs of compliance with 
all laws, regulations, lease terms, and special stipulations intended 
to protect the environmental impacts of mining. This action establishes 
the availability of the CED for Thermal Energy's PRLAs.

DATES: On or before May 6, 1997, interested parties may submit comments 
regarding the CED to the Bureau of Land Management at the following 
address. All comments will be reviewed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, Farmington District Manager, 1235 La Plata Hwy., 
Farmington, New Mexico, 87401.

    Dated: February 27, 1997.
Charlie Beecham,
Team Leader for Solid Minerals, Farmington District, Bureau of Land 
Management.
[FR Doc. 97-5381 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
# C_2022482EN.01001002.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 October 2022 — R. A. and Others v Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch

(Case C-645/22)

(2022/C 482/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants at first instance, appellants and appellants on a point of law: R. A. and Others

Defendant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer expresses the intention to preserve a contract by replacing an unfair term contained therein, a court, after finding that the contract cannot remain valid following the removal of the term found to be unfair, may rule on the issue of replacing the unfair term without first assessing the possibility of annulling the contract in its entirety? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer expresses the intention to preserve a contract by replacing an unfair term contained therein, a court, after finding that the contract cannot remain valid following the removal of the term found to be unfair, may rule on the issue of replacing the unfair term without first assessing the possibility of annulling the contract in its entirety?

| 2. | Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the national court has the possibility of replacing the unfair term contained in the contract with a supplementary provision or a provision of national law applied by mutual agreement of the parties to the contract in question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the national court has the possibility of replacing the unfair term contained in the contract with a supplementary provision or a provision of national law applied by mutual agreement of the parties to the contract in question?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
# C_2023121EN.01000501.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2022 — OSTP Italy Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ufficio delle Dogane di Genova 1, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ufficio delle dogane di Genova 2 and Agenzia delle Entrate — Riscossione — Genova

(Case C-770/22)

(2023/C 121/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OSTP Italy Srl

Defendants: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ufficio delle Dogane di Genova 1, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ufficio delle dogane di Genova 2, Agenzia delle Entrate — Riscossione — Genova

Question referred

May Articles 43, 44 and 45 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) be interpreted as precluding the compatibility with EU law of national legislation which provides for the immediate enforceability of judgments delivered at first instance by national courts, which have the effect of annulling, in whole or in part, tax payment orders relating to the European Union’s own resources?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (recast) (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 




 
CP 
CERULEANTM TM 
CERULEAN PHARMA INC. 
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
CUSIP 15708Q 10 5 
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
SPECIMEN 
IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF 
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK $0.0001 PAR VALUE
PER SHARE, OF 
CERULEAN PHARMA INC. 
transferable on the books of the
Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and Registered by the Registrar. 
WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 
Dated 
PRESIDENT 
CERULEAN PHARMA INC. 
2005 
DELAWARE 
TREASURER 
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
(Brooklyn, NY) 
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
BY: 
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
C SECURITY COLUMBIAN UNITED STATES BANKNOTE CORPORATION 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall
be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

															
	TEN COM	 	–	  	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–	 	  
	  	Custodian	 	  

	TEN ENT	 	–	  	as tenants by the entireties	  		 		 	(Cust)	  		 	(Minor)
	JT TEN	 	 –
	  	 as joint tenants with right
 of
survivorship and not as tenants
 in common
	  		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
		 	  	  		 	Act	 	  
	 	
		 	  	  		 		 	(State)	 	

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For Value Received,
                                         
                                        hereby
sell, assign and transfer unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
  

			
	 	
	 	 	 


	
	
	  

	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE)
	
	  

	
	  

	
	  

	Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	
	  

	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 

			
	Dated	 	  


  

			
	X	 	  

		
	X	 	  

	 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
PARTICULAR,
 WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.



  

	
	Signature(s) Guaranteed:
	
	  

	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996,  AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE THREE 
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

</LEGEND>
       

<S>                                                <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-1997
 <PERIOD-START>                                        JUL-01-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                 171,230
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          4,004,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                           394,000
<INVENTORY>                                            256,170
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      4,639,317
 <PP&E>                                                6,319,426
 <DEPRECIATION>                                        1,568,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         11,763,112
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 16,450,556
 <BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
 <PREFERRED>                                           1,000
 <COMMON>                                              8,918
<OTHER-SE>                                             (7,303,701)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           11,763,112
<SALES>                                                6,190,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,190,001
<CGS>                                                  3,640,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          6,969,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       167,249
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    160,712
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (946,474)
 <INCOME-TAX>                                          0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (946,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         (81,721)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
 <CHANGES>                                             0
 <NET-INCOME>                                          (1,028,195)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.12)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.12)

        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11855-11856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-273-000]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

March 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in the 
above docket, a request pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act 
(NGA), as amended, and Sections 157.205 and 157.212(a) of the 
Commission's Regulations, to operate an existing delivery point and 
appurtenant facilities in McCracken County, Kentucky, as jurisdictional 
facilities. Such facilities were originally constructed pursuant to 
Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) in order to effect 
transportation to Western Kentucky Gas Company (Western Kentucky), all 
as more fully set forth in the request which is filed with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specificlaly, Trunkline proposes to convert the authorization of 
the subject facilities from NGPA Section 311 to NGA Section 7 in order 
to use the delivery point for transportation services rendered under 
Trunkline's blanket certificate. The maximum capacity of the facilities 
at the delivery point to Western Kentucky is 20 MMcf per day of natural 
gas.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Section 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activity is deemed to be authorized 
effective on the day after the time

[[Page 11856]]

allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6280 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### William FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, and employees; C. Brown, PA-C, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35013

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

William Fletcher, Pro Se

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

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is *653suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*653MEMORANDUM **

William Fletcher, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer, 755*F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Fletcher consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See 28*U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Fletcher’s action before the named defendants had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(l), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BLEPHEX, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

PAIN POINT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DBA MIBO MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1187

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas in No. 3:16

- cv

- 00410

- N, Judge David C. Godbey.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

N ATHAN K. K ELLEY , Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by

D AN L. B AGATELL , Hanover, NH; A NDREW D UFRESNE , Madison, WI.

J ASON B LACKSTONE , Yarbrough Blackstone, Dallas, TX, argued for defendant

- appellee.

______________________ Case: 20-1187 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 09/02/2020T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, D YK and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 2, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 20-1187 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 09/02/2020
# C_2022284EN.01005201.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/52

---

Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics v EUIPO (BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B)

(Case T-324/22)

(2022/C 284/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Gómez Sánchez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B — Application for registration No 18 354 287

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 1925/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and order the continuation of the processing of EU trademark No 18 354 287 BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B applied for in order to distinguish goods in Classes 3, 16, 18 and 21; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and order the continuation of the processing of EU trademark No 18 354 287 BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B applied for in order to distinguish goods in Classes 3, 16, 18 and 21; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the appeal before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the appeal before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the general principles of EU law: equal treatment and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the general principles of EU law: equal treatment and good administration.

---
/**
 * @file
 * File init.js.
 */

(function (Drupal, settings) {
  Drupal.behaviors.googleTranslatorElement = {

    init: function () {
      var displayMode = settings.googleTranslatorElement.displayMode;
      new google.translate.TranslateElement({
        pageLanguage: 'en',
        includedLanguages: settings.googleTranslatorElement.languages,
        layout: google.translate.TranslateElement.InlineLayout[displayMode],
      }, settings.googleTranslatorElement.id);
    },

  };
})(Drupal, drupalSettings);