alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60283 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Ramiro Tzul,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 31

- 1

Before **Southwick, Oldham** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Ramiro Tzul appeals his eight

- month sentence imposed after revocation of his term of supervised release pertaining to his 2019 conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after being previously deported . He

* Pursuant to **5th Cir**  **cuit R**  **ule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 3, 20 21 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60283 Document: 00516002793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2021No. 21

- 60283

2 argues that his sentence , which was within the ad visory range, is substantively unreasonable. Both parties contend that review is for plain error because Tzul did not preserve his argument in the district court. However, by request ing a
sentence lower than the advisory range , Tzul preserved his substantive

reasonableness challenge. See Holguin

- Hernandez v. United States , 140 S. Ct. 762, 76 6

– 6 7 (2020). Thus, w e review his preserved challenge to the revocation sentence under a “plainly unreasonab le” standard. See United States v. Sanchez , 900 F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir. 2018). “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. ” United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted)

. A revocation sentence within the advisory range is pr esumptively reasonable. See United States v. Badgett , 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 827 (2020). Despite Tzul’s arguments to the contrary, the record shows that the district court considered Tzul’s testimony and mitigating arguments

. In imposing the sentence, t he district court articulated its consideration of the relevant sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. Tzul has not demonstrated any clear error of judgment in the court’s balancing of the relevant sentencing factors. Rather, his arguments amount to nothing more than a disagreement with the sentence imposed, which is insufficient grounds for reversal

. See Badgett , 957 F.3d at 541

. Accordingly, Tzul fails to demonstrate an abuse of the district court’s wide sentencing discretion. See Warren , 720 F.3d at 3 32 ; United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)

. **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-60283 Document: 00516002793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
No. 10-6953.

#### Robert Earl Hackney, Petitioner v. Blaine Lafler, Warden.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 910,

178 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 122,

January 10, 2011.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2808 

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to direct the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services to include data on animal 

abuse in the national clearinghouse for information relating to child 

abuse and neglect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2019 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire (for herself and Mr. KATKO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to include data on animal abuse in the national clearinghouse for information relating to child abuse and neglect. 

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 ‘‘Child and Animal 

5 Abuse Detection and Reporting Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2808 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF DATA ON ANIMAL ABUSE IN NA2 TIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION 

3 RELATING TO CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. 

4 Section 103(b)(6) of the Child Abuse Prevention and 

5 Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5104(b)(6)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (C), by adding ‘‘and’’ at 

9 the end; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(D) the incidence of any such cases re12 lated to animal abuse (including any act or fail13 ure to act, which results in undue pain, suf14 fering, or death to any animal, without regard 

15 to whether such act or failure to act is a viola16 tion of State or local cruelty law);’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ARTICLE 5 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (FDS) FOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
June 30, 1998 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000067182
<NAME> JOYCE NICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,298
<PP&E>                                          50,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,279
<BONDS>                                          3,725
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        654
<COMMON>                                           896
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,496
<SALES>                                         26,411<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,863<F1>
<CGS>                                           16,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,268
<INCOME-TAX>                                       921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,347
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,347
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
<FN>
<F1>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $2,894 MILLION OF EXCISE AND STATE
GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

              Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Consent



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Escalade, Incorporated on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-16279, 333-52475 and 333-52477)
of our reports dated March 7, 2007, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Martin Yale International GmbH
as of December 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 30, 2006, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated March 7, 2007, on our audit of the internal control over financial
reporting of the Company as of December 30, 2006, which report is included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ FALK & Co GmbH

FALK & Co GmbH
Wirtschaftsprufungsgesellschaft
Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
Heidelberg/Germany,
March 7, 2007

                                       63
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 8 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES R. DUNCAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
vs. CAPTAIN GIBSON; CAPTAIN MIRCHEIA, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-1419 (D.C. No. 02-F-561 (BNB)) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. ** Plaintiff-Appellant James Duncan, a state inmate ap pearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgmentin favor of the defendant prison officials in his § 1983 action. The parties are familiar with the facts and we neednot restate them here.- 2 -

Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that th e district court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Ap pellees as Mr. Duncan failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle , 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002); Jernigan v. Stuchell , 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). Even assuming that Mr. Duncan was affirmatively misled b y prison officials that his excessive force claim could not be grieved (therebyexcusing the exhaustion requirement), he has failed to demonstrate a genuin e issue of material fact on that claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Given the nature of this c ase, we refuse to appoint counsel. See Long v. Shillinger , 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991) (identifying factors courts consider in deciding wh ether to appoint counsel in civil cases). Mr. Duncan’s motion to proceed on appeal without pr epayment of fees is GRANTED, his motion for reconsideration of appointm ent of counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRM ED. Mr. Duncan is also reminded that he is obligated to make partial payme nts to this court until the entire appellate filing fee is paid in accordance w ith 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
No. 10-6946.

#### Robin L. Peoples, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 613,

178 L. Ed. 2d 446,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8849.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2016098EN.01002901.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. Srl v OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B)

(Case T-169/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MOTO B - Earlier non-registered national figurative marks MOTOBI - Relative ground for refusal - Evidence that the earlier non-registered marks are well known - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 2868/95 - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 098/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 95/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Benelli Q.J. Srl and Demharter GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Alexandre Georges Verheyden, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 689]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995 and lists a business address in Brussels, Belgium with the Office of Court Administration. This Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York in 2014 due to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (113 AD3d 1020, 1055 [2014]; *see*Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]). Respondent has moved for his reinstatement *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]) and, by correspondence from its Chief Attorney, petitioner opposes the motion.

Any attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and this Court’s rules, (2) that he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) that it would be in the public’s interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York *(see Matter of Edelstein,*150 AD3d 1531 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). In addition, an applicant for reinstatement must support his or her application with certain required documentation *(see*Rules for *962Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Here, respondent failed to submit a sworn affidavit as is required under both the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters and this Court’s prior practice *(see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Enriquez],*152 AD3d 949 [2017] [decided herewith]).* Moreover, respondent is again subject to potential discipline since he has failed to timely register for the most recent biennial period within 30 days of his date of birth *(see Matter of Turgeon,*148 AD3d 1458, 1459 [2017]; *Matter of Cluff,*148 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2017]). Accordingly, respondent has not satisfied his burden on this motion, and the application must therefore be denied *(see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Ostroskey],*151 AD3d 1377 [2017]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion for reinstatement is denied.

*

 Correspondence from petitioner which alerted respondent to the deficiencies in his application has not been responded to by respondent.
No. 10-7587.

#### Eduardo Olmedo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1155, 131 S. Ct. 951,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 439.

178 L. Ed. 2d 785,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 166.
Tips From Former Smokers Tips 2019/TV

Terrie/TV “I Wish” :30

The spot opens on the Tips From Former Smokers logo and cuts to an old photo of Terrie. Her age at 

the time it was taken (20) and her state (North Carolina) are displayed on screen. 

TERRIE: I wish I had never seen a cigarette in my entire life. 

The spot cuts to a shot of Terrie in the hospital. She is bald and wearing a cap on her head. Her stoma 

is visible above her hospital gown. 

TERRIE: I truly do. I wish I’d never seen one. Much less picked it up and smoked it. 

The spot cuts to the art card, which reads “Terrie died 2 days later. She was 53.”

ANNCR: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS.

ART CARD: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS. CDC LOGO

SPONSORED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

#CDCTIPS
No. 09-10705.

#### Carlos Shaarbay, aka Charles Shaarbay, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1171, 131 S. Ct. 980,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 476.

178 L. Ed. 2d 808,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 99, 178 L. Ed. 2d 63, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6120.
No. 10-7744.

#### George L. Roman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 964,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 329.

178 L. Ed. 2d 794,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 149.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randolfo Catu, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 600]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered March 19, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 years and 1 year, with a fine of $1,000 and five years postrelease supervision, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 18, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The record of the hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion supports the court’s determination (193 Misc 2d 623 [2002]) that knowledge of the postrelease supervision component of the sentence would not have affected defendant’s decision to plead guilty *(see United States v Timmreck,*441 US 780 [1979]; *People v Ammarito,*306 AD2d 99 [2003]; *People v Melio,*304 AD2d 247 [2003]). The record similarly establishes that counsel provided effective assistance in connection with the plea *(see People v McDonald,*1 NY3d 109 [2003]; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). *People v Rosenthal*(305 AD2d 327 [2003]) is not to the contrary. There, we reduced the sentence because the circumstances indicated it was excessive and not because defendant was not advised of postrelease supervision. Concur—Buckley, *307P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 193 Mise 2d 623.]
# C_2013156EN.01005101.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/51

---

Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)

(Case T-197/13)

2013/C 156/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MARQUES DE L’ÉTAT DE MONACO (M.E.M.) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2013 in Case R 113/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2013 in Case R 113/2012-4;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘MONACO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 43 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 069 254

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Second plea, alleging infringement of the law in the interpretation of distinctiveness |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea, alleging infringement of the law in the interpretation of distinctiveness

| — | Third plea, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of distinctiveness |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of distinctiveness

| — | Fourth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, insufficient reasoning or contradictory reasons for the refusal of registration for the goods in Class 9 |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, insufficient reasoning or contradictory reasons for the refusal of registration for the goods in Class 9

| — | Fifth plea, alleging the infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground of insufficient reasoning |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea, alleging the infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground of insufficient reasoning

---
No. 10-7104.

#### Emmanuel Fitzgerald Hammond, Petitioner v. Stephen Upton, Warden.

562 U.S. 1145, 131 S. Ct. 917,

178 L. Ed. 2d 766,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 138.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 586 F.3d 1289.
No. 10-6253.

#### Walter Walker, Petitioner v. Matthew Cate.

562 U.S. 1030, 131 S. Ct. 568,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8762.

178 L. Ed. 2d 416,

November 8, 2010.

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