alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 1/29/16 P. v. Montes CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not 

certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been 

certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FERNANDO MONTES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B265326

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA107197)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Jack P. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *
2

Fernando Montes appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing 

pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47. Pursuant to 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an 

opening brief requesting this court review the record and determine whether any 

arguable issues exist on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record and find no 

arguable issue. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2014, a felony complaint was filed alleging appellant 

committed one count of felony possession of a forged seal resembling the Great 

Seal of the State of California (Pen. Code, § 472; count 1) and one count of 

misdemeanor driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 

2). On September 8, 2014, appellant pled no contest to count 1, and he was placed 

on three years of formal probation. Count 2 was dismissed. On December 11, 

2014, appellant admitted he violated the terms of his probation and was again 

placed on probation with modified terms and conditions. On March 3, 2015, 

appellant filed a petition for recall of his sentence and resentencing pursuant to 

Penal Code section 1170.18. The court denied the petition on May 21, 2015, and 

appellant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After review of 

the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this 

court to review the record independently pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 

page 441. On October 16, 2015, we advised appellant he had 30 days to submit 

any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant did not file a 

supplemental brief.
3

We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues 

exist and appellant’s counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. 

(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 

p. 441; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

DISPOSITION

The court’s order is affirmed.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.
# C_2015279EN.01003201.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)

(Joined Cases T-98/13 and T-99/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark Camomilla - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No damage to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 279/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia, M. Franzoni and G. Rubino, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and M. Mussi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (cases R 1615/2011-1 and R 1617/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between CMT — Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) and Camomilla SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

---
No. 10-579.

#### Alfred Janiga, Petitioner v. Questar Capital Corporation, et al.

562 U.S. 1110, 131 S. Ct. 836,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9636.

178 L. Ed. 2d 559,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 615 F.3d 735.
# C_2013304EN.01002201.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté Prestige International (essence)

(Case T-448/13)

2013/C 304/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and C.Pape, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beauté Prestige International SA (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1085/2012-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1085/2012-5;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘essence’ for goods in Classes 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 21, 25 and 26 — Community trade mark registration No 6 816 144

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds pursuant to Article 52(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1), namely that the CTM was registered in breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

1

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and declared the CTM partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

1

---
# Disposition Services deputy commander visits Distribution Bahrain

/ Published April 28, 2016
MANAMA, Bahrain, 
Army Col. Wayne J. Bondy Jr., deputy director of Disposition Services, visited DLA Distribution Bahrain on April 20. He was accompanied by disposition area manager, Tony Cameron and operations officer, Army Capt. Jason Arikian from Disposition Services Central, Kuwait.

The group received a command brief by Distribution commander, Navy Cmdr. Todd A. Wanack. Additionally, Bondy lead a discussion on how Distribution and Disposition Services are working together for the disposal of mapping products and hazardous waste.

“The partnerships between the primary level field activities, Distribution and Disposition in this case, is critical for supporting our customer base and our agencies as we strive to provide excellent customer support and ensuring that we continue to take care of our work force,” said Bondy. “We are more effective working together than separately.”

The visit concluded with a tour of the facilities and discussion on current and future operations in Bahrain that the two organizations execute on a daily basis.

“Disposition Services will continue to be a willing partner in working together to support the overall DLA mission,” said Bondy.

Bondy, who previously served as DLA Distribution Anniston’s commander from July 2010 to June 2012, spent some time sharing his past experiences as a Distribution commander with the team.

“Our team here at Distribution Bahrain enjoyed hearing his perspective on DLA from the Disposition Services command level, as well as his time as a Distribution commander,” explained Wanack.
#### People v Gutierrez

App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 89383(U) (NY)

denied 3/29/17 (Stein, J.)
# DLA Aviation Logistics Operations Center employees give back to the local community through volunteerism 

/ Published April 20, 2022
Richmond, Va., 
Employees working within Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Logistics Operations Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, took time from their schedules for a team building event, volunteering at the Richmond Feed More facility in Richmond, Virginia, March 31.

ALOC Chief and team supervisor Kevin Ryan said the team of volunteers included Current Operations and Readiness Specialist Eddy Murillo, Force Provider Jason Dickerson, Future Operations and Planning Specialists Josh Stanley and Michael Dickerson, and Emergency Management Specialist Moses Williams.

Ryan said the team of volunteers prepared more than 1,100 meals the Feed More organization will distribute to those in need in the surrounding area.

“This team is always willing to step up to help. I can’t express how great this group is, and I am glad we can put together another collective effort that impacts something a little bigger than ourselves,” said Ryan. “We try to do some sort of event every couple of months, and now that COVID trends have improved, we are excited to see how we can build an even stronger team or help the community in some way.”

Ryan said he feels team events are an important part of the DLA Aviation culture, building internal camaraderie and leading to an even stronger set of core values.
# C_2016027EN.01004102.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Joint undertaking Fusion for Energy

(Case T-553/13) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support - Rejection of the tender of one tenderer and award of the contracts to other tenderers - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 027/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Mabger and I. Ampazis, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented: initially by H. Jahreiss, R. Hanak, A. Verpont, I. Costin and A. Nagy, and subsequently by R. Hanak, A. Verpont, I. Costin and A. Nagy, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 7 August 2013 taken in the context of the tendering procedure F4E-ADM-0464 concerning IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support services (OJ 2012/S 213-352451) rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and awarding the contracts to other tenderers, and (ii) an award of damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
# C_2013233EN.01000402.xml

| 10.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Marjan Noorzia

(Case C-338/13)

2013/C 233/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marjan Noorzia

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which spouses and registered partners must already have reached the age of 21 years at the time at which the application is submitted in order to be considered to be entitled to join other family members?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50617

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rene Santes-Cortez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-1686-1

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rene Santes-Cortez has moved 

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Santes-Cortez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50617 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024
No. 23-50617

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. 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.

Case: 23-50617 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2024
No. 10-7504.

#### Michael David Blazek, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 844,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9638,

178 L. Ed. 2d 573,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2016068EN.01001801.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-595/14) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Replacement of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings - Purpose of the action - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Consultation of the European Parliament))

(2016/C 068/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688 be maintained in force; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688 be maintained in force;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
No. 10M55.

#### Idea Nuova, Inc., Petitioner v. GM Licensing Group, Inc.

562 U.S. 1131, 131 S. Ct. 974,

178 L. Ed. 2d 743,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 405.

January 10, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 617 F.3d 177.
# C_2015320EN.01001202.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/12

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón — Spain) — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

(Case C-539/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 47 - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loan contract - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Right of appeal))

(2015/C 320/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

Applicants:

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 47, 34(3) and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision of the kind at issue in the main proceedings, by which the consumer, as a mortgage debtor against whom enforcement proceedings are brought, may bring an appeal against the decision rejecting his objection to the enforcement only when the court of first instance has not upheld an objection based on the unfairness of the contractual term upon which the enforcement is based even though the sellers or suppliers may, by contrast, appeal against any decision terminating proceedings regardless of the ground of objection on which that decision is based.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

1

---
## :1ECEI\.'ED OPPT CBIC 

## 2012**J[~N** 

## 17 AM 

## 10: 

# 45 3676 Davis Road N.W.· Dover, Ohio 44622 • (330) 343-7711 • 1-800-321-&05 • Fax: (330) 364-9626 

### January 9, 2012 Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) Office ofPollution Control and Toxics (OPPT) 

# u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Attn: 40 CFR 799.5089 (Docket 

### # EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-01 12) Re: Notice ofIntent to Test Dear Sir or Madam: This letter serves as Dover Chemical Corporation's notice ofintention to test under the above TSCA Section 4 Test Rule covering CAS 

### # 72162-15-3. Under this rule we are providing the following required information: I. Identification ofTest Rule 76 Fed. Reg. 204 (October 21, 201 I) 2. Name, Address, Telephone ofSponsoring Firm Dover Chemical Corporation 3676 Davis Road N.W. Dover, Ohio 44622 3. Name, Address, Telephone ofIndividual Contact

- Tim Nowicki 3676 Davis Road N.W. Dover, Ohio 44622 (330)-365-3610 4. Signatory Authority for Testing Consortium Members - Nt A 5. Testing Requirements Tier 1Testing 6. Testing ofRepresentative Substances

- NtA Regards,

# ?~ Tim Nowicki Manager Product Compliance 111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 401 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Dover Chemical Corporation


## CONTAIN2 NO CB'

### » P1TNE Y
..**·.'~S**

# I.:.;~=m Chemical Corporation 

# -­ ASubsldlll')' ofICC Industries Inc. ZIP 446::'::: 

## $ 

# 000 

# 44° :J::: 1\1'1 • 3676 Davis Road N.W. • Dover, Ohio 44622 000 1**:3<'i~"506JFN** 1



### Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) Office of Pollution Control and Toxics (OPPT) U.S. E;nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Attn: 40 CFR 799.5089 (Docket #EPA-HQ­ OPPT -2009-0112)

### I
..

# i.m
....\
..i.B•• "".illl.1
#### Jeffrey Lessoff, Appellant, v Joel Berger, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 605]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which, in an action by a suspended attorney against his former partner for breach of an agreement dissolving their firm, granted defendant partial summary judgment to the extent of limiting plaintiffs compensation for cases open at the time of his suspension to the quantum meruit value of the work he performed prior to his suspension, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject agreement, after transferring all of the firm’s cases and other assets to defendant, provides that the firm’s net profits from open cases are to be divided equally between the parties “in accordance with the law.” The law does not permit a suspended attorney to share in fees earned during the period of his suspension. Thus, with respect to cases that were open at the time of his suspension, plaintiffs share in any fees paid after his suspension is limited to the quantum meruit value of any work he performed prior to his suspension (22 NYCRR 603.13 [b]; see *Eisen v Feder,*307 AD2d 817 [2003]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.