alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., also known as Dillard’s, Inc., Defendant-Appellee and Paul Schroeder; Brock Akers, Individually; Chris Gonzalez, Individually; Phillips & Akers Professional Corp., Appellees Cletus Erenster, Interested Party-Appellant.

No. 06-20820

(Summary Calendar).

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2007.

Brock C. Akers, Phillips *&*Akers, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee/Appellees.

Timothy Andrew Hootman, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

*479Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

The history of this litigation in both the state and federal courts reflect extreme pettifoggery by and on behalf of Appellant Erenster, his former law partner, and others. Appellant and his counsel are warned that any further acts on their parts that would prolong this contumacious litigation will expose them to the full panoply of sanctions and disciplinary actions at the disposal of this court. We trust that these words to the wise will be sufficient.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        1605 
<SECURITIES>                                     0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                25290 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0 
<INVENTORY>                                  25564 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             54846 
<PP&E>                                       15108 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               76735 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        28337 
<BONDS>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                         9 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0 
<PREFERRED>                                      0 
<OTHER-SE>                                   21219 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 76735 
<SALES>                                     158659 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            158659 
<CGS>                                       120663 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               120663 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             696 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              19687 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  7696 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          11991 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0 
<CHANGES>                                        0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 11991 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.34 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.33 
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022099EN.01024801.xml

| 1.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/248 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/248

---

P9_TA(2021)0341

Managing the assets of the ECSC in liquidation and of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 July 2021 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2003/77/EC laying down multiannual financial guidelines for managing the assets of the ECSC in liquidation and, on completion of the liquidation, the Assets of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (COM(2020)0321 — C9-0216/2020 — 2020/0143(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 99/39)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2020)0321), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2020)0321),

| — | having regard to Protocol No 37 on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 2 thereof, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0216/2020), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Protocol No 37 on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 2 thereof, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0216/2020),

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A9-0228/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A9-0228/2021),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---
# C_2021027EN.01000501.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10037 — Mitsui/Veolia/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 27/02)

On 19 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10037. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10037. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# L_2009290EN.01005901.xml

| 6.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 290/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 290/59

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1052/2009

of 5 November 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Makói vöröshagyma or Makói hagyma (PDO))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Makói vöröshagyma’ or ‘Makói hagyma’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Makói vöröshagyma’ or ‘Makói hagyma’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 November 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 70, 24.3.2009, p. 27.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

HUNGARY

Makói vöröshagyma or Makói hagyma (PDO)

---
## NUMBER 13

- 2 3

- 00 0 04

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF C.Y.S. AKA C.Y.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silv a

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Appellant, mother, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s December 19, 2022

final order in this suit affecting the parent

- child relationship. On January 2 4 , 2023,

appellant filed an unopposed amended motion to dismiss the appeal , stating that she no

longer desires to pursue an appeal

. Appellant’s motion certifies that she conferred with

appellee, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

, who i s unopposed to

the relief requested in appellant’s motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3 (a)(2)

.

The Court, having considered appellant’s motion, is of the opinion that the motion2 should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellant’s unopposed

amended motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismis sed. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 43.2

. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”). Because the

appeal is dismissed at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and file d on the

2nd day of February, 2023.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000346

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

DRAKE HATHON, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CR. NO. 1CPC-21-0001564)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Defendant-Appellant Drake

Hathon's August 7, 2023 Motion to Dismiss Appeal, the papers in

support, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the

appeal is dismissed, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 42(b) and (c).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 6, 2023.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000346

06-DEC-2023

07:59 AM

Dkt. 24 OGMD
# L_2009102EN.01000301.xml

| 22.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 326/2009

of 21 April 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Andruty kaliskie (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland’s application to register the name ‘Andruty kaliskie’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland’s application to register the name ‘Andruty kaliskie’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 April 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 233, 11.9.2008, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

Foodstuffs listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 2.4.   Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares

POLAND

Andruty kaliskie (PGI)

---
**SMITH, GOOLSBY,**

**ARITS & REAMS,****P.S.C.**

 

 

**CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

**P.O. BOX 551       1330 CARTER AVE.**

**ASHLAND, KENTUCKY 41105-0551**

 

 

Board of Directors

Classic Bancshares, Inc.

 

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT

 

We have reviewed theaccompanying consolidated statement of condition as of September 30, 2001 andthe related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for thethree and six month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, and theconsolidated statements of stockholders equity for the six months endedSeptember 30, 2001, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the sixmonth period ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, in accordance with Statement ofStandards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Instituteof Certified Public Accountants.   Thefinancial statements are the responsibility of the corporation’s management.

 

A review of interim financialinformation consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financialdata and making inquires of persons responsible for financial and accountingmatters.  It is substantially less inscope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditingstandards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding thefinancial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

 

Based on our review, we are notaware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanyingfinancial statements for them to be in conformity with generally acceptedaccounting principles.

 

We have previously audited, inaccordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the consolidatedstatement of financial condition as of March 31, 2001, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equityand cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our reportdated June 15, 2001, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidatedfinancial statements.   In our opinion,the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated statement offinancial condition as of March 31, 2001, is fairly stated, in all materialrespects, in relation to the consolidated statement of financial condition fromwhich it has been derived.

 

/s/ Smith, Goolsby, Artis &Reams, psc

 

Ashland, Kentucky

November 9, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,697
<SECURITIES>                                    38,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,796
<PP&E>                                           9,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,496
<BONDS>                                          4,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,864
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,115
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,851)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,851)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.39)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Privott, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). He claims that a display booth located in the corridor outside the courtroom which contained a sign reading "Crime Hurts—Ask the Victim” was so prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial. Although defendant’s attorney noted an objection on the record to the presence of this display immediately after the jury had been selected and sworn and just prior to opening statements, no request was made for additional voir dire of the jurors to determine whether any of them had seen the display or had in any way been influenced by it.

We do not find the situation herein analogous to that in *People v Rivera*(26 NY2d 304). The display booth in this case dealt generally with the subject of crime victims’ rights and did not relate to defendant or his pending trial. Furthermore, there was no request for curative instructions or any motion for a mistrial; thus the issue has not been properly preserved for our review *(see, People v McCormick,*100 AD2d 723; *see also, People v Weston,*56 NY2d 844, 846).

*529There is no merit to defendant’s assertion that the proof was legally insufficient to show an intent to commit a crime. While defendant concedes that there was evidence of a forced entry, he maintains that the proof was legally insufficient to establish that he intended to commit a crime while inside the dwelling. To secure a conviction for burglary, the People need not establish what particular crime an intruder intended to commit *(People v Mackey,*49 NY2d 274, 279). Moreover, since intent is subjective, it may be established by proof of defendant’s conduct and other facts and circumstances. Defendant had gained entry into a private dwelling by breaking out a basement window during the early morning hours of the day. The intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the circumstances of the breaking and entering *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 379-381; *People v Henderson,*41 NY2d 233, 236-237; *People v Anderson,*103 AD2d 1011, 1012; *People v Wright,*92 AD2d 722, 723; *People v Terry,*43 AD2d 875). Although there was evidence that defendant was intoxicated, the jury was properly instructed concerning the effect of intoxication upon the element of intent (Penal Law § 15.25; *see,*1 CJI[NY] 9.46). It is apparent that the jury determined, as it had a right to do, that defendant was not so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming an intent to commit a crime within the dwelling.

The record supports the jury’s finding that the "sais” (martial arts weapons used by defendant during the course of this burglary) were " '[d]angerous instrument^]’ ” as that term is defined in the statute (Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51270 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EVARISTO SALAS-MARTINEZ, also known as Evaristo Martinez-Salas Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-1044
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Evaristo Salas-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51270

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

I 

, l 

~ 

Vi'._\~ 

""t P \c.~ I 

:>-.,h.);y c· 

I 

\ ~ (,, 

'1\A~' vdl k l\ 

r 

l-

' '!"' 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.) 

~ I J 

' 

r 

1'1f f W<.,..) 

~ <•' 

"' 

l~ 

t:X 

o\; 

"'::, 

l. 

~ 

t: 

J 

v 

' 

l 

Case 6:16-cv-00124-TC Document 1 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
"€•,ire 

}\,,...b 

C) 

A~ 

.fC/t.-iC-tvKJ. 

( 

L, f I 

1 

[,~f;'i~ v~ 

"' fl/ct 

I •tl< [t, 1 W 

l-(·li'.o '-'- " 

~. Pi"~t 

j tli'{~ 1"v'Jt,.;_u t~AAL .. H•j ()....._ 

u-vcec( ''~ ;~•· •\y 'cl\ 

,, ·q.{ £ ('' 1k,. / ~ "i'-d.\l~' IJ•7)c" l 1' "' 

if'!) \"u . ..r 

fμ V'..tCt.eve e;,._""~'t 

j., "- I "' ,, {· b Yo, iH-"""" lJ\ " j j) 

I 

J\. f 'le.,,.( 'j 1, .. .A. 

1/4.{ 

c..J•rcl Jt ,, " j l1 ,) ,{ 

~i l--.. ...'C y ,;! '~,,- L,,~·1 ""J'-',~,1 ~ ,.( 

ci~·~s 

"··<AJ 

~ti V-( 

'l w~ "''I;} 

~ ;/k.;• ,_;~{ 

f ,, IL. <> F 

Jt j( { " 

t'xsi::u'if<:•-~ i.J,·yi'j--

1,G.c -

Case 6:16-cv-00124-TC Document 1 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2