alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40197

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELMER ESTUARDO SOPONY-VALENZUELA, also known as Julio Rene

Cardona-Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-690-ALL 

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elmer Estuardo Sopony-Valenzuela appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the

constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than

as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light

of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
No. 06-40197

-2-

The Government does not seek to invoke the appeal waiver and

has thus waived the issue. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d

226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006). Sopony-Valenzuela’s constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Sopony-Valenzuela contends

that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a

majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in

light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on

the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United

States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Sopony-Valenzuela properly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
Robert Lee HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3983

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Brandon David SUMMERLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3142

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020433EN.01001601.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/16

---

Appeal brought on 4 August 2020 by YG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-518/18, YG v Commission

(Case C-361/20 P)

(2020/C 433/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier, avocate, S. Rodrigues, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in part, the contested judgment and declare the appellant’s requests in Case T-518/18 admissible and well-founded, confirming the payment of the costs by the defendant; and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in part, the contested judgment and declare the appellant’s requests in Case T-518/18 admissible and well-founded, confirming the payment of the costs by the defendant; and consequently

| — | annul the contested decisions in the first instance;
  or, if this is not possible, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions in the first instance;

or, if this is not possible,

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgement. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgement.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Distortion of evidence and breach of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Distortion of evidence and breach of the rights of the defence.

| 2. | Insufficient and contradictory reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Insufficient and contradictory reasoning.

---
# C_2018005EN.01004301.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/43

---

Order of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Karp v Parliament

(Case T-833/16) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 005/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions classifying the applicant in function group I, grade 1, under the contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant concluded on 25 February 2015, and in function group II, grade 4, step 1, under the contract of employment as contract agent concluded on 12 May 2016 and, secondly, seeking compensation for the damages allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those classifications.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The request for an expedited procedure is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The request for an expedited procedure is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | Mr Kevin Karp is ordered to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Kevin Karp is ordered to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

1

---
# C_2021053EN.01004302.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/43

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2020 — Genekam Biotechnology v Commission

(Case T-579/20 R)

(Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)

(2021/C 53/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Genekam Biotechnology AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, A Katsimerou and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 299 TFEU to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2020) 5548 final of 7 August 2020 establishing a pecuniary obligation and forming an enforceable decision against the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Glenn Scott RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. Nicole Stephannie Felicia RODRIGUEZ, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2404 5D17-3474

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019

Nikie Popovich, of Popovich Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Chad A. Barr and Heather M. Kolinsky, Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant challenges the amended final judgment for dissolution of marriage and the post-final-judgment income withholding for child support and alimony order ("IWO"). Having carefully reviewed the record and the briefs filed, we affirm the amended final judgment without further discussion.

*410There are, however, two errors in the IWO that Appellee concedes should be corrected. First, Appellant was ordered in the amended final judgment to pay Appellee the sum of $ 4500 per month in durational alimony through July 1, 2032, but the IWO does not presently provide a date for Appellant's employer to discontinue its withholding and remittance of money from Appellant's pay check once Appellant's durational alimony obligation ends. Second, the IWO contains an incorrect date for when Appellant's child support payment is to be reduced once his obligation to pay support for the parties' eldest child ends. The parties acknowledge that the present date of May 31, 2020, in the IWO is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect the date of May 31, 2019.

Accordingly, we affirm the amended final judgment for dissolution of marriage in all respects but remand for the entry of a corrected IWO consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 1 of 24 PageID 130
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 2 of 24 PageID 131
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 3 of 24 PageID 132
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 4 of 24 PageID 133
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 5 of 24 PageID 134
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 6 of 24 PageID 135
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 7 of 24 PageID 136
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 8 of 24 PageID 137
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 9 of 24 PageID 138
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 10 of 24 PageID 139
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 11 of 24 PageID 140
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 12 of 24 PageID 141
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 13 of 24 PageID 142
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 14 of 24 PageID 143
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 15 of 24 PageID 144
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 16 of 24 PageID 145
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 17 of 24 PageID 146
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 18 of 24 PageID 147
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 19 of 24 PageID 148
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 20 of 24 PageID 149
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 21 of 24 PageID 150
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 22 of 24 PageID 151
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 23 of 24 PageID 152
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 21 Filed 06/03/03 Page 24 of 24 PageID 153
Thomas J. DOHERTY, et. al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carolyn REDLIN, et. al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2747

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2022244EN.01002502.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Mandelay v EUIPO — Qx World (QUEST 9)

(Case T-516/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark QUEST 9 - Earlier EU word mark QUEX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Articles 95 and 97 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 244/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary) (represented by: V. Luszcz, C. Sár and É. Ulviczki, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and B. Mező, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2020 (Case R 1900/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between QX WORLD and Mandelay.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by QX WORLD Kft. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by QX WORLD Kft.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 83 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 1 of 8 PageID 110
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 2 of 8 PageID 111
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 3 of 8 PageID 112
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 4 of 8 PageID 113
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 5 of 8 PageID 114
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 6 of 8 PageID 115
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 7 of 8 PageID 116
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 28 Filed 07/24/01 Page 8 of 8 PageID 117
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Kevin J. Kennedy, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Avaya Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: February 14, 2011
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Christopher Dineen,Chief Financial Officer**

I, Christopher Dineen, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of RadView Software Ltd.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.

| Date: April 13, 2006 |   | /s/ CHRISTOPHER  DINEEN |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                      |   | Christopher Dineen      |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, Hugh Panero, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XM Satellite Radio Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003
**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 OmniReliant Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Christopher D. Phillips, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      OmniReliant Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by OmniReliant Holdings, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





May
      21,
      2007














/s/
      Christopher D. Phillips


*Christopher
      D. Phillips*


*Interim
      Chief Executive Officer,*


*Chief
      Financial Officer*