alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5932]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-2-70-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to 
become effective April 1, 1997:

1st Rev Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 018
1st Rev Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 019

    Columbia Gulf states that this filing represents Columbia Gulf's 
annual filing pursuant to Section 33, ``Transportation Retainage 
Adjustment (TRA)'', of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1. Columbia Gulf states that it 
currently has retainage factors for each of its three zones. Each 
factor consists of a current and an unrecovered component for company-
use, lost, and unaccounted for quantities. In this filing, Columbia 
Gulf is adjusting the current component of each retainage factor to 
reflect a change in the estimate for company-use, lost, and unaccounted 
for quantities.
    The deferral period for this filing is the twelve-month period of 
January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996. Columbia Gulf states that 
Appendix A to the filing sets forth Columbia Gulf's actual experience 
during the deferral period. As reflected therein, Columbia Gulf was in 
a net under-recovery position as of December 31, 1996. Consequently, in 
this filing Columbia Gulf is implementing an unrecovered surcharge 
component for each of the retainage factors to increase future 
quantities to be retained.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or 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. 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 in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5932 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ken Michelle STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-30478 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed 02/07/2018

William James Quinlan, Jr., Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollens-head Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ken Michelle Stevenson, Pro se

*621Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ken Michelle Stevenson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Stevenson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.1 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.

*

 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.

1

. Specifically, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Stevenson's motion to clarify his sentence. We do not read the district court's order as addressing the propriety of a *nunc pro tunc*designation, *see*BOP Program Statement 5160.05 at 5-6, nor the potential merits of any claim Stevenson may have under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, *see generally Hunter v. Tamez,*622 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2010).
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 8, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-600

Lower Tribunal No. 13-18824

________________

Felix Rivera,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo

Orshan and Veronica A. Diaz, Judges.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant

Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

EMAS, J.
We affirm the judgment and sentence below, and decline appellant’s

invitation to address on direct appeal the merits of his claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel. See Bruno v. State, 807 So. 2d 55, 63 (Fla. 2001)

(noting that, as a general rule, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

cannot be raised on direct appeal); Desire v. State, 928 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2006) (recognizing that “[a]s a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel are not ordinarily cognizable on direct appeal. The exception is when

the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.”) We do so

without prejudice for appellant to file a timely and proper motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and

express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.

Affirmed.

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7699

JAMES WAYNE CAVINESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusJ. R. HUNT, JR., Superintendent for the Columbus Correctional Institute, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-386) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wayne Caviness, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the order from which Caviness appeals was filed on December 2, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet on December 6, 1999. December 6, 1999, is therefore the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: James Wayne Caviness seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in itsdetermination that assuming Caviness’ claims are preserved for federal review, they are meritless. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on this reasoning of the district court. See Caviness v. Hunt , No. CA-98-386 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 1999). * 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.

DISMISSED
No. 11-10709.

#### Lopez *v.*Sanders, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,234
<SECURITIES>                                     2,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,145
<INVENTORY>                                     11,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,962
<PP&E>                                          29,966
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,482
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,934
<SALES>                                         49,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,067
<CGS>                                           29,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (855)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreementdated as of March 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGESECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asMaster Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, TRIMONTREAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C27 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during theperiod from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the MasterServicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# C_2023035EN.01003801.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/38

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20, PB v Commission

(Case C-721/22 P)

(2023/C 35/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: PB, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the first and third paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the first and third paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits in relation to the action for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits in relation to the action for annulment; and

| — | order PB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order PB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a ground of annulment alleging an error of law.

The Commission disputes the finding of the General Court which considers, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that, on the basis of the reasoning in paragraphs 51 to 64 of that judgment, the PFI Regulation (1)‘cannot therefore constitute on its own the relevant legal basis for the purposes of adopting administrative measures seeking the recovery of amounts unduly paid. ...’

The General Court errs in law because Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation constitute an autonomous and sufficiently precise basis to adopt administrative measures of recovery, which are not a penalty.

In paragraph 69 of its judgment, the General Court, lastly, concluded that the joint application of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002 and Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation did not permit the adoption of a measure vis-à-vis the applicant at first instance, in so far as he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments.

According to the Commission, the General Court errs in law because Article 7 of the PFI Regulation, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation and Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002, constitutes a sufficiently clear and precise provision to allow recovery from the applicant at first instance, even though he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments at issue.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus DEAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30126

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE — Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Helena), Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marcus Dean appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dean argues that the district court-erred by failing to consider the exception to imprisonment listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and, in turn, by not sentencing Dean to drug treatment instead of imprisonment, as requested. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Rangel,*697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that there is none. Even if Dean is correct that the district court could have ordered substance abuse treatment in lieu of imprisonment, the record reflects that it would not have done so. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008) (to show plain error, defendant must show “a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence” absent the error). Contrary to Dean’s contention, the record shows that the court considered his request for substance abuse treatment, as well as his alternative request for a 5-month sentence, and concluded that an 11-month sentence was warranted. The court’s reasons for imposing the high-end sentence are apparent from the record. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Dean’s history on supervision, the sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Carty,*520 F.3d at 993.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 11-10263.

#### Baxter v. United States,

*ante,*p. 914. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C_2023134EN.01001301.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (CERVIRON perfect care)

(Case T-38/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark CERVIRON perfect care - Earlier unregistered national trade mark CERVIRON - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 134/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romedor Pharma SRL (Focşani, Romania) (represented by: E.-M. Dicu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: R. Manea and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Perfect Care Distribution SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: R. Pop, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2021 (Case R 521/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Romedor Pharma SRL to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romedor Pharma SRL to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Perfect Care Distribution SRL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Perfect Care Distribution SRL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
No. 11-10664.

#### Howell *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11455-11456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6329]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, March 17, 1997.

Place: Marriner' S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Proposed amendments to the Voluntary Guide to Conduct for Senior 
Federal Reserve System Officials.
    2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.


[[Page 11456]]


    Dated: March 10, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-6329 Filed 3-10-97; 10:44 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# C_2022451EN.01000801.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — VK v N1 Interactive Ltd.

(Case C-429/22)

(2022/C 451/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VK

Defendant: N1 Interactive Ltd.

Question referred

Is Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (1) on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (‘the Rome I Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the law of the country in which the consumer has his or her habitual residence is not applicable if the law applicable under Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation, the application of which the applicant seeks and which would be applicable if the applicant lacked consumer status, is more favourable to the applicant?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             2,997,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,744,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     966,000
<PP&E>                           119,844,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   (12,932,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   112,619,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              5,654,000
<BONDS>                           36,889,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                         107,672,000
<OTHER-SE>                       (37,596,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     112,619,000
<SALES>                           27,022,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  27,893,000
<CGS>                              9,577,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     16,569,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     137,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 4,800,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,387,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                6,387,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (473,000)
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       5,914,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .64
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10500.

#### Campos-Cabrera, aka Campos *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.