alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 09-1921, 09-2989 & 09-2991

_________________

JOEL S. ARIO,

Insurance Commissioner of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

in his official capacity as the statutory liquidator

of Legion Insurance Company (in liquidation);

*PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP,

Appellant (09-1921)

v.

THE UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE

53 AT LLOYDS FOR THE 1998 YEAR OF ACCOUNT

Cross-Appellants (09-2991)

*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 12(a) (09-2989 only))

_________________ 

No. 09-1922, 09-2990 & 09-2992

_________________

 

JOEL S. ARIO,

Insurance Commissioner of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

in his official capacity as the statutory liquidator

of Villanova Insurance Company (in liquidation);

*PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP,

Appellant (09-1922)

v.
2

THE UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF SYNDICATE

53 AT LLOYDS FOR THE 1998 YEAR OF ACCOUNT

Cross-Appellants (09-2992)

*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 12(a) (09-2990 only))

_________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1B08-cv-01619/20)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

_________________

Argued March 10, 2010

_________________

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 18, 2010)

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed August 

18, 2010, be amended as follows:

One page 13, first partial paragraph, line 2, insert “the” before the word 

“Convention’s”.

One page 13, first partial paragraph, line 3, change “applies” to “apply”.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: December 7, 2010
#### Clayton C. Townes, *Appellant,*v. Heinrich Rohde and Martin Rohde, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 6, 1928.

*Treadwell & Treadwell,*for Appellant;

*Leitner & Leitner,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Anthony P. JOHN, DOC #R31835, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3140

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice
 On December 23, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *LANXESS Corporation,*
                     Civil Action No. 24-cv-07522. The United States filed this lawsuit under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 113(b), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), seeking a civil penalty and injunctive relief for the Defendant LANXESS Corporation's failures at its Charleston, South Carolina manufacturing facility to properly (1) identify and monitor equipment that can leak hazardous air pollutants; (2) control and monitor wastewater treatment processes; (3) calculate the status of batch process vents; and (4) adhere to recordkeeping requirements. The consent decree requires the Defendant to perform injunctive relief to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, pay a civil penalty of $650,000, and spend at least $3.545 million performing supplemental environmental projects. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *LANXESS Corporation,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-12671. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov*.By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter. During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     If you require assistance accessing the proposed consent decree, you may request assistance by email or by mail to the address provided above for submitting comments. Scott Bauer, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2024-31377 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1879

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Timothy W. Sparks

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: October 4, 2012

Filed: October 9, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Timothy Sparks pled guilty to being a

felon in possession of a firearm and to a counterfeiting offense. The district court

1

sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 210 months, the bottom of the

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
calculated Guidelines range. On appeal, Sparks’s counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting that Sparks

entered into a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, but nevertheless arguing

that the district court abused its discretion in declining to grant Sparks a downward

departure or variance. Sparks has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Sparks’s ineffective-assistance claim is not within the scope of the appeal

waiver, but this court declines to address it on direct appeal. See United States v.

McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers

ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Counsel’s arguments, however, are within the scope of the appeal waiver, and

this court enforces the appeal waiver as to them. See United States v. Jennings, 662

F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2011) (court should enforce appeal waiver if both waiver and

plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, appeal is within

waiver’s scope, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v.

Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of whether defendant

waived right to appeal sentence).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. This court dismisses the appeal and grants counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
**EXHIBIT 32.0**
**SECTION        1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

| (1)   | The                Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December                31,                2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a)                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a)                or                78o(d); and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE:  | March                  16, 2007 |   | BY:    | /s/                  Scott V. Fainor                              |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |   |   | Scott                  V. Fainor                                  |
|   |                            |   |   | President                  and Chief Executive Officer            |
|   |                            |   |   |                                                              |
|   |                            |   |   |                                                              |
|   |                            |   |   |                                                              |
| DATE:  | March                  16, 2007 |   | BY:    | /s/                  Eugene T. Sobol                              |
|   |                            |   |   | Eugene                  T. Sobol                                  |
|   |                            |   |   | Senior                  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   |                            |   |   | Officer                  and Treasurer                            |

*A        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the        Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained        by KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission        or        its staff upon request.*
# C_2020378EN.01002001.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-412/20)

(2020/C 378/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: P

Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and/or the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union indeed preclude an executing judicial authority from executing an EAW issued by a court in the case where that court does not meet the requirements of effective judicial protection/actual judicial protection, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer met those requirements, because the legislation in the issuing Member State does not guarantee the independence of that court, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer guaranteed that independence?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman,certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNHEquipment Trust 2007-C (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.              Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.              Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.              I am responsiblefor reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on myknowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliancestatement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and exceptas disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilledits obligations under the servicing agreement; and

 

5.              All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated party: Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.

 

March 28, 2008

 
|   |   |                                                            |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                            |
|   |   |                                                            |
|   |   |                                                            |
|   | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Bierman                                           |
|   | Name:  | Steven C. Bierman                                               |
|   | Title: | President (senior officer  in charge of the servicing function) |
|   |   |                                                            |

 

----

 

 

 

* *
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of OrderPro Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 23, 2004                            /s/ Jeffrey M. Smuda
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Jeffrey M. Smuda
                                                Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         The undersigned, a consultant performing certain services For OrderPro
Logistics, Inc. commonly performed by a chief financial officer, hereby
certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of OrderPro Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: June 23, 2004                      /s/ Robert C. Scherne
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Consultant performing certain services
                                          for the Company commonly performed by
                                          a Chief Financial Officer
Airport Planning

*

  April 1&2, 2014

Airport Planning (RPD 132)

Contract Funds ($K)

TOTALS:

*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avaya Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald K. Peterson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



|/s/DONALD K. PETERSONDonald K. Peterson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

May 12,
2004

62

---



QuickLinks
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 5, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00287

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.I.C.S., A CHILD

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA01026

Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. The

appellee’s brief is due on or before November 29, 2021 ; however, no further extensions will be

granted absent extenuating c ircumstances.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
STATE of Louisiana v. George SHORT

NO. 2018-KH-1875

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
# C_2019383EN.01007801.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/78

---

Action brought on 26 September 2019 – eSky Group IP v EUIPO – Gröpel (e)

(Case T-646/19)

(2019/C 383/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Gröpel (Straubing, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark e in colours turquoise, white, dark blue, blue and light pink – Application for registration No 16 731 333

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in Case R 223/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of Opposition Division of 29 November 2018 adopted in opposition proceedings No B 2 957 168; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of Opposition Division of 29 November 2018 adopted in opposition proceedings No B 2 957 168;

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4770

_____________________________
J EFFERY D. S HORES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Robert M. Foster , Judge

. October 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jeffery D. Shores, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.