alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50752 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RUBEN PATRICK VALDES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1326-1-PRM

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ruben Patrick Valdes appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to smuggle aliens and transporting aliens. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the district court erred in applying the eight-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6)(4). Valdes argues that there was no evidence tying him directly to the July 27, 2002, load in which two people died while being transportedNo. 03-50752 -2- in the back of an unventilated and unrefrigerated trailer. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to tie him to the conspiracy or to show that the deaths were the result of the conspiracy. Valdes asserts that the eight-level enhancement for conduct resulting in the death of any person should not have applied because the Government did not establish causation or that the deaths were reasonably foreseeable. Based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational trier of fact could have found Valdes guilty of both offenses. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). The evidence showed that Valdes was involved in transporting illegal aliens within the United States and conspired with numerous other people to accomplish this purpose. Several members of the conspiracy were involved in the fateful July 27, 2002, load in which two of the aliens being transported died of heat stroke. See United States
v. Maceo , 947 F.2d 1191, 1198 (5th Cir. 1991). There also was evidence directly linking Valdes to the load. Given the involvement of both Valdes and his co-conspirators in the transportation of the aliens who died, the fact that the deaths were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the smuggling activities, as well as the fact that the deaths were caused by the aliens being transported for profit, the district court did not err in applying the eight-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). See United States v. Garcia-Guerrero ,No. 03-50752 -3- 313 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Cuyler , 298 F.3d 387, (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

| 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      Registrant. |
|----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                |   |                                       |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                |   |                                       |   |
| April      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Bin      Wang      |   |
|                |   | Bin      Wang                              |   |
|                |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |   |

|   |   |                                               |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                               |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Ming      Fen Liu     |   |
|   |   | Ming      Fen Liu                                  |   |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer                       |   |
|   |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer)  |   |
# C_2018436EN.01000701.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Tribunalul Botoşani, Ministerul Justiţiei v Maria Dicu

(Case C-12/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - Parental leave not regarded as a period of actual work))

(2018/C 436/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tribunalul Botoşani, Ministerul Justiţiei

Defendant: Maria Dicu

Intervening parties: Curtea de Apel Suceava, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time is to be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of determining a worker’s entitlement to paid annual leave, as guaranteed by that article for a worker in respect of a given reference period, does not treat the amount of time spent by that worker on parental leave during that reference period as a period of actual work.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---
# C_2016287EN.01002901.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/29

---

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)

(Case T-315/16)

(2016/C 287/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Butterfly’

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 221/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and EU trade mark application No 011757549 is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and EU trade mark application No 011757549 is rejected;

| — | order the other party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00023]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1197 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-995, K2025-994.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00023 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7
Case 3:04-cv-01550-H Document 1 Filed 07/16/04 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8
Richard L. DUMAS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2606

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Marcus Melendez TOLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3474

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2010 (the
"Report"), of Mac-Gray Corporation (the "Company") each of the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



This
certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

Dated: March 14, 2011

/s/ STEWART G. MACDONALD, JR.Name: Stewart G. MacDonald, Jr.
Title: Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 14, 2011

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHEAName: Michael J. Shea
Title: Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________
No. 95-20392 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EULALIO MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas (CR-94-H-0268)

______________________________________________

February 1, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eulalio Martinez ap p eals his conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He argues that the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from

a truck he was driving and in denying him a Sentencing Guidelines

offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We

affirm both the conviction and sentence for the following reasons:2

1. The district court correctly denied Martinez's motion to

suppress complaining of the search of the pickup truck. Martinez

a bandoned the truck and had no reasonable expectation of privacy

with respect to such automobile. See United States v. Barlow , 17

F.3d 85, 88 (5th Cir. 199 4); U nited States v. Edwards

, 441 F.2d

749, 751 (5th Cir. 1971).

2. Martinez has failed to demonstrate th at the district

court clearly erred in denying his request for a reduction based on

his acceptance of respons ibility. Martinez did not plead guilty

and failed to cooperate with the probation officer with respect to

his involvement in the offense. Moreover, the complete information

he contends was provided to the Government was the same information

that he challenged at the suppression hearing.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YANFENG GAO; JINGHUA W ANG, Pe titione rs, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-71037 Age n c y Nos. A099-739-931 A099-739-932 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Yanfe ng Ga o a

nd Jinghua

W ang, na

tive s a nd c itiz e ns of C h i na , pe tition for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing the ir a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED MAR 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a n d re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola

tions. Singh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny in pa

rt a n d dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w . Pe titione rs c onc e de tha

t the y did not suffe r pa st pe rse c ution, but fe ar future pe rse c ution ba s e d on Ga o’ s joining a Shoute r’ s c hurc h while in the Unite d State s. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Ga o fa ile d to e s ta

blish a we ll-founde d

fe ar of pe rse c ution. Se e N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (possibility

of future pe rse c ution too spe c ulative ). B e c a use pe titione rs fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility

for a s y lum , the y

ne c e ssa rily fa ile d to m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of rem ova l . Se e Prasad v . IN S , 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th C ir. 1995). W e re je c t pe titione rs’ c onte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d to a de quate l y c onside r the i r argum e nts on a

ppe a l . Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror to de m o nstra te a due proc e s s c l a im ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r pe titione rs’ a s se rtions tha t the IJ e xhibite d bia s a

nd a llowe d a

n ove rly a ggre s sive c ross-e xam inat ion, be c a use pe titione rs did not rai se the m to the B IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c o nside r issue s tha

t ha ve not be e n a dm inistra

t ive l y e xha

uste d). 1 3 - 7 1 0 3 7 2Fina lly , pe titione rs do not ra ise any argum e nts re g arding thede nia l of C AT re lie f. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano , 94 F.3d a

t 1259-60. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 1 0 3 7 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 2710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory 
Council for Human Genome Research.
    This is a video assisted meeting held virtually. It is open to the 
public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual 
meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, 
should notify the contact person listed below in advance of the 
meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from https://www.genome.gov/event-calendar/105th-Meeting-of-National-Advisory-Council-for-Human-Genome-Research.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council for Human Genome 
Research.
    Date: February 10-11, 2025.
    Closed: February 10, 2025, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Human Genome Research Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 1100, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Virtual).
    Open: February 10, 2025, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: Report of Institute Director and Institute Staff.
    Address: National Human Genome Research Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 1100, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Virtual).
    Closed: February 11, 2025, 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Human Genome Research Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 1100, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Virtual).
    Contact Person: Jennifer L. Troyer, Ph.D., Director, Division of 
Extramural Operations, National Human Genome Research Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 480-3565, [email protected].
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://www.genome.gov/council, where an agenda and any 
additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 6, 2025.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00469 Filed 1-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, David A. Fisher, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of optionsXpress Holdings, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(c)) for the registrant and 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 report is being prepared;

 

b) [Reserved]

 

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

 

d) 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’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

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) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 9, 2005

 
|   | /s/ DAVID A.  FISHER |                       |
|--------|---------------------------|----------------------------|
|   | Name:                     | David A. Fisher            |
|   | Title:                    | *Chief  Financial Officer* |
|        |                           |                            |  |

 

----
Cortavius FERGUSON v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00540-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 12, 2019 Closed: April 4, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.