alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Sauberan, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted. *(See, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38.) (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Armer, J.—attempted robbery, third degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00457

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v. DANIEL SOLIS

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20MC

- 05536

- 1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
December 1 , 2022
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1








	symetra financial corporation incorporated under the laws of cUSIP 87151Q 106 THE
STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF
COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE OF transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the
holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly
endorsed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its
duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed. Dated CORPORATE SECRETARY
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER






 









 












	symetra financial corporation The Corporation will furnish without charge to each
shareholder who so requests the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating,
optional, or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications,
limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the
Corporation’s Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation. The following abbreviations,
when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they
were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM — as tenants in
common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN
- as joint tenants with right under Uniform Gifts to Minors of survivorship and not as tenants in
common Act (State) UNIF TRF MIN ACT- Custodian (until age) Cust) under Uniform Transfers (Minor) to
Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer(s) unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAM AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF
ASSIGNEE) ) Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do(es) hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within
named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE(S)
TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN
EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:
By THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Case: 1:01-cr-00592 Document #: 72 Filed: 02/19/02 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:109
Case: 1:01-cr-00592 Document #: 72 Filed: 02/19/02 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:109
Case: 1:01-cr-00592 Document #: 72 Filed: 02/19/02 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:109
Case: 1:01-cr-00592 Document #: 72 Filed: 02/19/02 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:109
# C_2019093EN.01006902.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/69

---

Action brought on 4 January 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)

(Case T-10/19)

(2019/C 93/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United States Seafoods LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign UNITED STATES SEAFOODS — Application for registration No 1 365 398

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2018 in Case R 817/2018-5

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,141,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,102
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,226,454
<PP&E>                                         196,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,800,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,888
<BONDS>                                         20,711
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,775
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,749,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,800,005
<SALES>                                        200,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,997
<CGS>                                           34,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               249,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (70,288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (70,288)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (70,288)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Honorable James E. Barlow

CriminalDistrictAttorney Bexar County San Antonio, Texas

Dear Mr. Barlow: Opinion NO. c-586 Rer After January 1, 1966, what statutewill govern the appointment,,

removal and compensation

of grand jury bailiffs in Bexar County? You have requested the Attorney General'sopinion concerningthe statutes that will govern the appointment, removal and compensation of grand jury bailiffs in Bexar County after January 1, 1966.

Your opinion request and the briefs submittedpoint out that there appear to be at present three statutesbearing upon the questionpresented. These statutesare Article lg.36 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, (Acts, 1965, 59th m3., Ch. 722 - S.B. 107)~ Article CriminalProcedure;and Article 199 37)(Q), ?67h, Vernon's Code of

Vernon's Civil Statutes.

The latter two statutesare still in effect by virtue of the provisionsof Article 54.02, Section l(b) and Section 2(a), Code of CriminalProcedure,respectively,saving them from repeal.

Both of the latter statutesare special legislatZon, and according to the general rules of statutory construction, would govern over the provisionsof Article lg.36 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in event of any conflict. Of the latter two statutes,Article 199 37)(Q) applies specifically to Bexar County,while Article L 3 7h has a broader application, i.e., to countieswith a populationof 25O,OOO or more inhabitants. Thus, according to the above rule of statutory construction,

Article 199(37)(Q) would govern over the more general provisionsof Article 367h.

Therefore,according to Article 199(37)(Q),the Dlstrlct Judges of the 144th and 175th District Courts shall alternatelyappoint grand jury bailiffs not to exceed seven. -2828-Honorable James E. Barlow, Page 2 (C-586)

Each Judge may appoint three of such bailiffs, and If needed, may jointly appoint the seventh such bailiff. Balllffs thus appointedare subject to removal at the will of the Judge or Judges so appointing them.

This does not mean, however, that Article 36711 is without any force or effect. Since Article 199(37)(Q)provides only for a method of selectionand removal of such bailiffs, Article 367h will control as to the method of fixing the compensation of such bailiffs,which compensationshall be fixed by the Commissioners Court of Bexar County togetherwith an automobileallowance to be set by the Commlssloners Court, all in accordancewith the provisionsof such statute. SUMMARY Article 199(37)(Q), V.C.S., governs the appointmentand removal of grand jury balliffs in Bexar County. Article 367h, V.C.C.P., governs the compensation of such grand jury bailiffs. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General of Texas

*g Assistant'Attorney General GJP/dt APPROVED! OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Douglas W. Chllton Charles B. Swanner Thomas H. Routt APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY T. B. Wright

-2829-
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1463/2006

of 19 June 2006         

adapting Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania signed in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005, and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 56 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 shall be amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2007 subject to the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 2006.

For the Council

The President

J. PRÖLL            

----

(1)OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1.

----
# Official Journal L 320/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 320 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 584 December 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 320

English edition

Legislation

Volume 584 December 2015

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/2220 of Amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 | 1 |
| | | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/2221 of Amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 | 44 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/2220 of Amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2015

1

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/2221 of Amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2015

44

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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 For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-20826 Summary Calendar

C. EARLINE BEAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-1594)

March 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM: *

C. Earline Beam ("Be am") sued her former employer, Pasadena

Independent School District ("PISD"), in May 1997, alleging claims

against PISD for sex discrimination and/or retaliation under 42

U.S.C. § 2000-e ("Title VII"); for age discrimination under the Age

Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.

("ADEA"); and for due process violations under the Fourteenth

Amendment. In February 1998, PISD moved for partial summary2

judgment and Beam withdrew her age discrimination and due process

claims. PISD then moved for summary judgment on Beam’s remaining

claims and the district judge granted summary judgment dismissing

all of Beam’s claims. Beam timely filed this appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the district judge in her Memorandum Opinion and Order entered

August 7, 1998, we AFFIRM the Final Judgment entered on the same

date which grants PISD’s motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont C. Washington, Appellant.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (William J. Watson, A.J.), rendered April 27, 2011. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AUDRIE BLOOM,

Appellant,

v.

IRONHORSE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.,

a Florida not-for-profit-corporation, RICHARD LITNER and

DONALD GUNDERMANN,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-1985

[April 11, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cymonie Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014CA001934 AO.

Audrie Bloom, Boynton Beach, pro se.

Therese A. Savona and Kathryn L. Ender of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., 

Miami, for appellee Ironhorse Property Owners Association Inc.

GERBER, C.J.

A property owners association’s former board member appeals from the 

circuit court’s final judgment confirming a voluntary binding arbitration 

award in the association’s favor. Because the former board member’s 

appeal does not raise a constitutional issue, we dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2016):

(10) An appeal of a voluntary binding arbitration decision 

shall be taken to the circuit court and shall be limited to 

review on the record and not de novo, of:

(a) Any alleged failure of the arbitrators to comply with the 

applicable rules of procedure or evidence.

(b) Any alleged partiality or misconduct by an arbitrator 

prejudicing the rights of any party.
2

(c) Whether the decision reaches a result contrary to the 

Constitution of the United States or of the State of Florida.

. . . .

(12) . . . No further review shall be permitted unless a 

constitutional issue is raised.

§ 44.104(10), (12), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). See also Kaplan v. 

Epstein, 219 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Pursuant to section 

44.104, when parties agree to submit to voluntary binding arbitration, 

their appeal is to the circuit court, and no further review is permitted 

unless a constitutional issue is raised.”).

Dismissed.

MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         120,609
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          29,877
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,550
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,285,791
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,626
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,614
<LOANS>                                      2,609,342
<ALLOWANCE>                                     27,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,208,360
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,924,638
<SHORT-TERM>                                   631,636
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             54,806
<LONG-TERM>                                    297,779
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,575
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,208,360
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 52,937
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               20,226
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   739
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                73,902
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              28,497
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,240
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           32,662
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,151
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 379
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 36,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,097
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,097
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,126
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.53
<LOANS-NON>                                     17,888
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,042
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 25,842
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                27,919
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,884
<RECOVERIES>                                       450
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               27,636
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            19,845
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          7,791


</TABLE>
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40567 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus MIKE RENA, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. B-94-CV-266, B-90-CR-323-13

- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Mike Rena, Jr., appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level based on his role as a "supervisor," under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, and in denying an offense role reduction for acceptance of responsibility, under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Because claims challenging technical applications of the Sentencing Guidelines are not cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding,No. 95-40567 -2- Rena's arguments are meritless. United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE HIRSCH and
DAVID HIRSCH,

Plaintiffs,
No. 03 C 0994

Vv.

DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 25, 2005 this Court orally denied the motion of
plaintiffs Christine and David Hirsch (collectively “Hirsches”)
to vacate the arbitration award (“Award”) that had been entered
in the National Arbitration Forum on October 20, 2004 in its case

entitled Citibank (USA), N.A. v. Christine Hirsch, No. FA

0401000231884. This Court relatedly ordered that defendant’s
motion to confirm the Award was to be filed on or before February
1, with the Hirsches’ response due February 4. Citibank (USA),
N.A. (“Citibank,” incorrectly named in the Complaint here as
Diners Club International Ltd.) has timely filed its motion, but
Hirsches have failed to respond.

It appears most likely that Hirsches’ failure to respond is
attributable to their having nothing to add to their earlier
motion to vacate the Award, which this Court found to be devoid
of merit. As the Citibank motion reflects, Hirsches did not

pursue the continued opportunity that this Court had given them


back in May 2003 to challenge in this action the arbitrability of
the parties’ dispute. Instead they participated actively in the
arbitration proceedings, both by responding to Citibank’s claim
and by advancing a Counterclaim that asserted the same
substantive claims that they had presented in the Complaint in
this action. Those submissions by both Citibank and Christine
Hirsch produced the Award that was then entered by arbitrator
Donald Parkinson, in which he awarded $35,072.63 to Citibank and
dismissed the Counterclaim with prejudice.

In accordance with Federal Arbitration Act §§ 9 and 13 (9
U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13), this Court confirms the Award, enters
judgment in favor of Citibank and against Christine Hirsch in the
sum of $35,072.63 and dismisses with prejudice Hirsches’ claims
asserted in this action. This memorandum order disposes of all

issues in this case and is accordingly a final order.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Entered: February 9, 2005

G:\WPTEXT\Hirschl.wpd