alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 10221 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Austin Lavy Jackson,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 55

- 1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

Defendant

- Appellant Austin Lavy Jackson appeals the 240

- month , within

- guideline s term of imprisonment imposed following his conviction for distribution and receipt of child pornography. He challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, as serting that it is greater than

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determin ed that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4.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 August 18, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10221 Document: 00515984828 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2021No. 21

- 10221

2 necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He alleges
that his sentence fails to reflect that: (1) H e had “no prior arrests or convictions”; (2) “he never produced pornography or enticed others to be photographed or recorded”; (3) “he only shared the pornography with one other person and only on two occasions”; (4) “most of the pornography he
viewed involved postpubescent teenage boys who were relatively close to his own age”; and (5) “he deleted hi s photos and videos prior to his arrest.”

We review a preserved challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district court for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2010). W e apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness w hen a sentence falls within a properly calculated guidelines range

. United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson ’s mitigation argument s and his request for a sentence below the guidelines

range

. T he district court nevertheless concluded that a sentence within the guidelines range was warranted based on the § 3553(a) factors. Jackson has
not shown that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. See id

. His disagreement wi th the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.
Koss , 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED. Case: 21-10221 Document: 00515984828 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2021
# C_2023235EN.01002501.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland v Commission

(Case T-314/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No standing to bring proceedings - No active participation - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 235/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH, formerly GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH (Hamelin, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019, declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
# C_2022128EN.01002102.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)

(Case T-589/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY - Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Admissibility of new evidence - Alteration of the distinctive character)

(2022/C 128/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl (Surano, Italy) (represented by: R. Fragalà, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inticom SpA (Gallarate, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 (Case R 1874/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inticom and Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(5)
              - products_publications(31)
              - multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - (-)multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(14)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(4)
              - arkansas(9)
              - california(25)
              - colorado(10)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(12)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(18)
              - georgia(7)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(4)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(17)
              - iowa(5)
              - kansas(5)
              - louisiana(35)
              - maine(13)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(13)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(12)
              - montana(15)
              - (-)nebraska(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(14)
              - north carolina(13)
              - north dakota(35)
              - ohio(20)
              - oklahoma(5)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(6)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(30)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(42)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(37)
              - virginia(7)
              - washington(21)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(12)

## By Year

Photography        September 30, 2014        Flooding in Nebraska

Photography        March 1, 2019        Spring 2019 Flooding - Louisville, NE
# C_2023035EN.01004901.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-537/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure by Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 34(6) and Article 35(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014)

(2023/C 35/56)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, J. Jokubauskaitė and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Lithuania seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/859 of 16 June 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 195, p. 59), in so far as that decision imposed on it a flat-rate financial correction of 5 %, thereby excluding the sum of EUR 2 186 447,97 from financing under the early retirement aid measure during the period from 16 October 2013 to 30 June 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.1
  Certification required by Rule
13a-14(b) or
 Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906
of
 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John H.
Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:
  (1)
                The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2)
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  May 10, 2010
                
                /s/ John H.
      HomierJohn H. HomierPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
STATE of Louisiana v. Rudolph WADE

No. 2018-KH-563

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., concurring.

The appropriate channel for defendant to obtain the records he seeks (regardless of their utility at this late date) would instead be according to public records law. Generally, custodians of public records must provide inmates with a cost estimate for production of documents to which the inmates are entitled under the Public Records Law, R.S. 44:31 ; R.S. 44:31.1 ; *State ex rel. Leonard v. State* , 96-1889 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325, and which the inmates want to buy*. See, e.g.* , *Landis v. Moreau* , 00-1157, p. 6 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So.2d 691, 695 ; *State ex rel. Level v. State* , 99-2266 (La. 12/17/99), 751 So.2d 869 ; *Range v. Moreau* , 96-1607 (La. 9/3/96), 678 So.2d 537. However, those seeking such documents must make a demand of the record's custodian before seeking judicial review. R.S. 44:35(A). Only after a fruitless demand of the custodian may they seek mandamus relief. *Id.* In addition, they may seek judicial review only in an independent action under the district court's civil jurisdiction. *State ex rel. McKnight v. State* , 98-2258 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/03/98), 742 So.2d 894.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2

Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


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



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002),  I, the  undersigned  Treasurer  and Chief
Financial  Officer of Nuclear  Solutions,  Inc., (the "Company"),  herby certify
that,  to the best of my  knowledge,  the  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the
Company for the period ended  December 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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  operation of the
Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the  registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated April 21, 2004.                          /s/John Dempsey
                                               V.P. and CFO
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and results of the Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                |   |                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   |                                             |   |
| Date:  November 4, 2010    |   | /s/ Tyrone R. Carter                        |   |
|                                                |   | Tyrone R. Carter, Acting Chief Executive Officer |   |

|         |   |                                                            |
|--------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|         |   |                                                            |   |
|    |   | /s/ Tyrone R.  Carter                            |   |
|         |   | Tyrone R. Carter,  Acting Principal Financial Officer |   |
Joesph Elmer FREEMAN v. Kristen Michelle FREEMAN

2160179

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 614-1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID 15463
Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 614-1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID 15464
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 3 of 12 PageID 3
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 4 of 12 PageID 4
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 5 of 12 PageID 5
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 6 of 12 PageID 6
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 7 of 12 PageID 7
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 8 of 12 PageID 8
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 9 of 12 PageID 9
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 10 of 12 PageID 10
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 11 of 12 PageID 11
Case 3:03-cv-00599-G Document 1 Filed 03/21/03 Page 12 of 12 PageID 12
# C_2016156EN.01005101.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/51

---

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)

(Case T-81/16)

(2016/C 156/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting in two curved stripes positioned on the sidewall of a tyre — Application for registration No 13 388 293

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 1019/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
**EXHIBIT 99.3****CONSENT OF MCDANIEL AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LTD.**We consent to the incorporation by reference of references to our firm and of information derivedfrom our report entitled “Evaluation of Oil and Gas Reserves”, evaluating Enterra Energy Trust’sreserves as of December 31, 2004 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Enterra EnergyTrust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-120996) and the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-113609 and 333-115318).Sincerely,**McDANIEL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LTD.** /s/P.A. Welch                              P. A. Welch, P. Eng.
EXHIBIT 10.2







EXTENSION AGREEMENT


EXTENSION AGREEMENT dated as of September 19, 2016 between Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation, and Samuel E. Navarro (the "Consultant") effective as of October 1, 2016 (the "Effective Date").


Recitals:


The parties entered into a Consulting Agreement dated as of November 4, 2015, which was amended as of July 20, 2016, (the "Agreement"), under which the Consultant provided consulting services to the Company.  The Consulting Agreement continued in effect through September 30, 2016.  The parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2016, as provided in this Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:


1. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the termination date of the Agreement to December 31, 2016.


2. The parties acknowledge and agree that all of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of the Agreement shall hereafter continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms, except to the extent amended, modified or revised herein.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above.







STRATA SKIN SCIENCES, INC.

















	
By:

	
 /s/ David K. Stone                                                        

	 	 

 /s/ Samuel E. Navarro                                        


	 	
David K. Stone, Chair

	 	
Samuel E. Navarro


	 	
Nominating and Governance Committee
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANA M. RAMIREZ,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-4626

[November 9, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lynn Rosenthal, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE10044390.

Jonathan Kline, Jonathan Kline, P.A., Weston, for appellant.

Kimberly S. Mello, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, and Michele 

Stocker, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the CallWave, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, 2000Stock Incentive Plan, 2004 Stock Option Plan and 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated August 4, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of CallWave, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2006. 

/S/    ERNST &YOUNG LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California

September 22, 2006
[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 126 Ohio St.3d 482, 2010-Ohio4389.] 

THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 

126 Ohio St.3d 482, 2010-Ohio-4389.] 

Habeas corpus — Adequate remedy at law by way of appeal — Res judicata bars 

action — Judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2010-0906 — Submitted September 15, 2010 — Decided 

September 22, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 

No. 94626, 2010-Ohio-1763. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 

of appellant, Gregory Smith,1

 for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release 

from confinement. Smith has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his 

jurisdictional claim concerning his resentencing. See Patterson v. Ohio Adult 

Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8; State ex 

rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-

Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4. Moreover, res judicata bars Smith from filing a 

successive habeas corpus action to raise a claim that he could have raised in his 

previous action. [Smith] DeDonno v. Bradshaw, 124 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2009-

Ohio-6816, 919 N.E.2d 213; Keith v. Kelley, 125 Ohio St.3d 161, 2010-Ohio1807, 926 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 1. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

1. Although Smith claims that his last name is now DeDonno, the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction still lists his last name as Smith. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Gregory Smith, pro se. 

 William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 

Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 

______________________