alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50578 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GILBERTO PINEDA-ORTUNO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P96-CA-016

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gilberto Pineda-Ortuno, federal prisoner no. 53721-080, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Pineda-Ortuno argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the elements of the firearm charges in his case and that there was insufficient evidence to support the firearm charges. These issues were decided against him in his direct appeal and cannot be raised again by § 2255 motion. UnitedNo. 97-50578 -2- States v. Pineda-Ortuno , 952 F.2d 98, 103-04 (5th Cir. 1992); See United States v. Kalish , 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1986). His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
# C_2022303EN.01001002.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/10

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-683/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-153/22 P)

(2022/C 303/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG

By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) refused to allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
#### BROWN, L., v. YORK CO. PRISON, et al.

590 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/16/2017

York County Civil Division, 2013-SU-003938-49

Affirmed
Exhibit 23







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-139535, 333-109669, 333-106292 and 333-106292-01) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-139529, 33-54993, 333-57220, 333-16201, 333-34776, 333-45084, 333-45082, 333-37392, 333-107013, 333-69079, 333-121152, 333-121153, and 333-121155 ) of Energy East Corporation of our report dated February 28, 2007, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 28, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted
from the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-2-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-1-1997
<CASH>                                          18,537
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,579
<INVENTORY>                                    569,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               896,810
<PP&E>                                         764,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                 306,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,451,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          462,994
<BONDS>                                        300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           499
<OTHER-SE>                                     586,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,451,980
<SALES>                                        580,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               580,499
<CGS>                                          376,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  520,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,322
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022318EN.01002602.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 May 2022 — Z. sp. z o.o. v A. S.A.

(Case C-326/22)

(2022/C 318/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: A. S.A.

Question referred

In the context of the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, must Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) be understood as meaning that a consumer, or an undertaking to which a consumer has transferred his/her rights arising from that provision of the directive, may request, pursuant to it, that the creditor hand over a copy of the agreement (as well as the terms of business forming part of the agreement), and information on repayment of the credit which are necessary in order to verify the correctness of the calculation of the sums paid to the consumer as repayment of the proportion of the total cost of the credit in connection with the early repayment thereof and necessary in order to bring a claim for any repayment of the aforementioned amounts?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---
tnib_ex1020.htm


Exhibit 10.20


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  




9
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
RICKEY WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant
v. RON J. WARD, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, and OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Respondents-Appellees. No. 98-7014 D.C. No. CV-97-632-B

ORDER Filed May 22, 1998
Before PORFILIO , BALDOCKand LUCERO , Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM
.
This is an appeal from an order of the district cou rt denying Rickey White’s “petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651” in which Mr. White sought a mandamus to the Oklahoma Court of Cr iminal Appeals to rule on his pending state habeas matter. The district court dis missed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.-2-

Although it appears from the district court docket sheet that the notice of appeal was filed January 16, 1998, more than 30 day s after entry of the district court order on December 10, 1997, Mr. White attached to h is brief a copy of this court’s letter directing the district court to file a misdi rected notice of appeal as of January 9, 1998 the date it was received in this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(“If a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in the court o f appeals, the clerk of the court of appeals shall note thereon the date when the clerk received the notice and sent it to the clerk of the district court and the notice will be treated as filed in the district court on the date so noted.”) Thus the notice of appeal should have been docketed as filed on January 9, 1998. Accordingly, we conclude that there is juris diction to consider this appeal. The district court correctly determined that it lac ked jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its duty. Van Sickle v. Holloway , 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n.5 (10th Cir. 1986)(lower federal courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to “‘direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.’”)(quoting Haggard v. State of Tennessee , 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970). At most, a federal habeas court could forg ive the exhaustion requirement. See Harris v. Champion , 938 F.2d 1062 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district court order is AFFIRMED . The mandate shall issue forthwith.
# C_2023338EN.01001901.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 July 2023 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Innovation (frutania)

(Case T-109/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark frutania - Earlier EU figurative mark Frutaria - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 338/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Frutaria Innovation, SL, formerly Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Saragossa, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez and C. Anadón Giménez, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 December 2021 (Case R 1058/2017-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Markus Schneider to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Markus Schneider to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---
No. 11-10626.

#### Shorter *v.*Adams, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-20.

#### Coulter *v.*Kelly, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8257 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide to a member of the uniformed services who is denied 

a traumatic injury protection claim under Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance certain information related to that denial. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself and Mr. BERGMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide to a member of 

the uniformed services who is denied a traumatic injury 

protection claim under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance certain information related to that denial. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency for 

5 Wounded Warriors Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8257 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR TRAUMATIC INJURY PRO2 TECTION UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP 

3 LIFE INSURANCE. 

4 Section 1980A of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(l) If a claim for benefits under this section is de8 nied, the Secretary concerned shall provide to the member 

9 at the same time as the member is informed of such denial 

10 a report describing each reason for that denial, including 

11 a description of all the information upon which the denial 

12 is based and a description of the applicable laws, regula13 tions, or policies, with appropriate citations, and an expla14 nation of how such laws, regulations, or policies affected 

15 the denial. Any reason, information, or explanation that 

16 is not so provided may not be used by the Secretary con17 cerned as the basis to deny a subsequent review or appeal 

18 by the member of a denial of a claim for benefits.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 11-11136.

#### Hall *v.*Peoples et al.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-10143.

#### Loggins *v.*Kansas.

Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.
#### PENNDOT v. FOSTER, E.

2059 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/06/2017

Allegheny County Civil Division, No. S.A. 16-703.

Reversed
Exhibit 4.1







 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 20, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Enhanced Value II Trust, Series
9


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Enhanced Value II Trust, Series 9 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 20, 2014, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-193671) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                                             


Vice President
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Northland Cranberries, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on
my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended November 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ John Swendrowski
--------------------------------------
John Swendrowski
January 13, 2003
No. 11-10964.

#### Jackson *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         429,765
<SECURITIES>                                   293,190
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               778,246
<PP&E>                                       2,683,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 665,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,312,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,415
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,256
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,950,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               419,835
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                284,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                   108,690
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            195,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                468,624
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   664,504
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5656]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Extension of Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) for Proposed Projects at the Massachusetts Military 
Reservation, Cape Cod, MA

AGENCY: National Guard Bureau, Department of the Army.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The public comment period for the DEIS will be extended for 30 
days from the date of this announcement's publication in the Federal 
Register.
    This 30-day extension is to provide all interested persons 
additional time to review and provide comments on the DEIS.
    The DEIS was originally released for a 90-day public comment period 
from the Department of the Army in 61 FR 63832 (Monday, December 2, 
1996) and the Environmental Protection Agency in 61 FR 64742 (Friday, 
December 6, 1996).

COPIES Copies of the DEIS can be obtained from the EIS Project Officer 
at the below listed address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The EIS Project Officer, Captain Tracy 
Norris, Massachusetts National Guard, Unified Environmental Planning 
Office, Building #1204, Camp Edwards, Massachusetts 02542, telephone: 
(508) 968-5824.

    Dated: March 3, 1997.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety, and 
Occupational Health) OASA (I,L&E).
[FR Doc. 97-5656 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
No. 11-10497.

#### McCray *v.*Alabama.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 23, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-1515

Lower Tribunal No. 17-7653 

________________

Pierre-Jean Nguyen,

Petitioner,

vs.

Natalia Nguyen,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A. and Barry S. Franklin, for petitioner. 

Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP and Elizabeth Baker; Barakat Law, P.A. and

Brian Barakat, for respondent. 

Before SUAREZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ. 

SUAREZ, J.

Petitioner Pierre-Jean Nguyen seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition

following an order denying, as legally insufficient, an initial motion for
disqualification of the trial judge. The standard of review of a trial court's

determination on a motion to disqualify is de novo. MacKenzie v. Super Kids

Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990); Wade v. Wade, 123 So. 3d 697

(Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration provide for the disqualification

of a judge when “the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or

hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R.

Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1). The legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify depends

on “whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of

not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087

(Fla. 1983); State v. Borrego, 105 So. 3d 616, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The

allegations of fact that are contained in the motion must be taken as true, Masten v.

State, 159 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and “the question of

disqualification focuses not on what the judge intended, but rather how the

message is received and the basis of the feeling.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v.

2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass'n, 153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing

Livingston, 441 So. 2d at 1086).

Having reviewed the petition and the transcript of the hearing referred to

therein, we conclude that the facts alleged in the motion to disqualify, which must

be taken as true, “would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear

2
of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252,

1274 (Fla. 2005).

We grant the writ of prohibition. We withhold formal issuance of the writ,

confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification. We

remand this cause for reassignment to a successor judge and for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

3