alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando HERNANDEZ-SALAZAR, a.k.a. Armando Sosa-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10335.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 19, 2007.

Timothy Francisco Andrews, Yuma, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lynn T. Hamilton, Esq., Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Armando Hernandez-Salazar, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Hernandez-Salazar appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for illegal reentry and being found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Salazar’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Hernandez-Salazar did not file a *pro se*supplemental brief, and the Government did not file an answering brief.

We have reviewed the briefs and conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (appeal waiver valid when entered into knowingly and voluntarily).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company et al., Appellants, v National Shoes, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00054

- CR

J AMES H AUGHT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Criminal

Court No. 5

of Denton County ( F18

- 3232

- 158 )

September 16, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Chief

Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

________________ Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### Wurttembergische Fire Insurance Company, Appellant, v Pan Atlantic Underwriters, Ltd., et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.), dated July 28, 1986, which, *inter alia,*denied its motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant Bank of America from making payment on a certain letter of credit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In August 1985 the plaintiff caused Bankers Trust Company to establish an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the "Republic Insurance Company c/o Pan Atlantic Group Inc.” in the amount of $356,381.

On March 20, 1986 the plaintiff established another irrevocable letter of credit with the defendant Bank of America in favor of "Republic Insurance Company c/o Pan Atlantic Group Inc.” also in the amount of $356,381. This letter of credit stated that "It replaces Bankers Trust, New York letter of credit”.

Republic Insurance Company c/o Pan Atlantic Group Inc. (hereinafter Republic) drew against the original Bankers Trust letter of credit on March 27, 1986, and was paid the amount of $356,381.

On April 7, 1986, the Bank of America received a sight draft from Republic drawing on the second letter of credit in the amount of $356,381. The Bank of America refused to honor the sight draft.

On April 18, 1986 the plaintiff commenced an action against Republic to recover damages for fraud. The plaintiff sought, *inter alia,*a permanent injunction enjoining Republic from drawing against the Bank of America letter of credit and enjoining the Bank of America from paying on the letter of credit.

Our review of the record reveals that the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was properly denied.

"It is well settled that in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate (1) the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that the equities are balanced in his favor” *(Kurzban & Son v Board of Educ.,*129 AD2d 756, 757).

*269We find that the plaintiff’s hare conclusory allegations of Republic’s potential insolvency are insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of demonstrating irreparable injury. Furthermore, the court of first instance stated, "on consent of the defendants, the proceeds of the letter of credit, after payment by the Bank of America, are to be held in constructive trust for the plaintiff by the defendants pending the outcome of this action or the further order of the court”. Clearly the establishment of such a trust defeats any claim of irreparable harm. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMER]CA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

VS

CARLDWIGHT LEWIS.

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0083

Enforcement Activity No. 7 632919

CONSENT ORDER

Issued Bv: Honorable Georqe J. Jordan. Administrative Law Judge

Issued: April 21.2023

Appearances:

PAUL LEDOUX

USCG Sector Virginia

For the Coast Guard

CARL DWIGHT LEWIS,pro se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On March 9, 2023, the Coast Guard hled a Complaint against Carl Dwight Lewis

(Respondent), alleging one count of Use of or addiction to the Use of, or Addiction to

the Use of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of 46 C.F.R. S 16.201(b) and 46 U.S.C. S

7704(b). The Coast Guard alleged that Respondent failed a chemical test for dangerous

drugs, raising the presumption ofuse.

On March 9, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe

case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I find that it is

fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. S

20.502.

)
HON. GEORGE J. JORDAN

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

()RDER

Upon consideration of the record' it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement

Agreement is APPROVED in fuIl and incorporated herein by reference'

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

RJVoKED.However,therevocationisstayeduntilJlne9,2024,topermlt

Respondent to complete a rehabilitation program and prove cure in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent complete the terms of the

Settlement Agreement prior to the termination of the stay. If Respondent satisfies the

requirements, this order will reflecl an outright suspension for the period ofdeposit to

permit Respondent to complete and prove cure in accordance with the stipulated order

contained in the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Consent Order shall constitute full, final,

and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Done and dated Apil 2l,2023,

at Seattle, WA

---i
# C_2021483EN.01000301.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 483/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 483/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10407 – AIP / ALVANCE DUNKERQUE TARGET BUSINESS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 483/03)

On 23 November 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10407. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10407. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2456 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2456

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the sharing of data 
                generated from research with the public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

  Mr. Pitts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the sharing of data 
                generated from research with the public.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHARING OF DATA GENERATED THROUGH NIH-FUNDED RESEARCH.

    Section 402 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) Sharing of Data Generated Through NIH-Funded Research.--
            ``(1) Authority.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director of 
        NIH may require recipients of the award of an NIH grant or 
        other financial support, provided that the research is fully 
        funded through such grant or other support, to share scientific 
        data generated from research conducted through such support for 
        research purposes.
            ``(2) Limitation.--The Director of NIH shall not require 
        the sharing of data that is inconsistent with applicable law 
        and policy protecting--
                    ``(A) privacy and confidentiality;
                    ``(B) proprietary interests;
                    ``(C) business confidential information;
                    ``(D) intellectual property rights; and
                    ``(E) other relevant rights.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EGL, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,843
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               186,944
<PP&E>                                          71,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 284,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,620
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   284,091
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               644,278
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  380,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               225,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,057
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,132
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81


</TABLE>
# C_2021063EN.01000301.xml

| 23.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9771 — Hitachi/Honda/HIAMS/Keihin/Showa/Nissin Kogyo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 63/03)

On 7 August 2020, 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 32020M9771. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9771. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### FRISCHMAN, Respondent, v. ZIMMERMAN et al., Appellants.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by Ignatz Frischman against Moses Zimmerman and Herman Walke.

S. D. Levy, for appellants.

J. Fromme, for respondent.

FITZSIMONS, J.

The plaintiff’s testimony, which, evidently the jury believed, shows that the note in suit was given for the rent of the Coney Island property, and was accepted by the plaintiff because of the defendant Zimmerman’s indorsement, and was in no sense an accommodation indorsement. The fact that Zimmerman indorsed the note evidently induced the plaintiff -to lease the premises just described to the defendant Walke, and it was accepted by plaintiff in payment of the rent therein mentioned. Of course it was the plaintiff’s duty, in view of the fact that Zimmerman’s indorsement was irregular, to show by the weight of evidence that the note was given, and said indorsement made, for the purpose of obtaining credit with the payor. This duty he fully performed, in our judgment, as the appeal record shows. We have been unable to find any errors herein, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. VAN WYCK, O. J., concurs in the result.
# C_2021245EN.01003501.xml

| 24.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/35

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10252 — Transgourmet Group/General Markets Food Iberica)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/19)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | General Markets Food Ibérica Group (‘GM Food’, SPAIN), controlled by Bright Food Group (CHINA); |
| --- | --- |

—

General Markets Food Ibérica Group (‘GM Food’, SPAIN), controlled by Bright Food Group (CHINA);

| — | Transgourmet Holding AG (‘Transgourmet’, SWITZERLAND), controlled by Coop-Gruppe Genossenschaft (SWITZERLAND). |
| --- | --- |

—

Transgourmet Holding AG (‘Transgourmet’, SWITZERLAND), controlled by Coop-Gruppe Genossenschaft (SWITZERLAND).

Transgourmet acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of GM Food.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | GM Food: distribution of daily food and near-food supplies for retailers such as supermarkets and for foodservice operators (restaurants, hotels and catering companies) in Spain mainly. |
| --- | --- |

—

GM Food: distribution of daily food and near-food supplies for retailers such as supermarkets and for foodservice operators (restaurants, hotels and catering companies) in Spain mainly.

| — | Transgourmet: procurement and wholesale supply of daily consumer goods in several EU and non-EU countries and, through the Bell Food Group, production of processed meat products, spices/condiments and a variety of convenience products. |
| --- | --- |

—

Transgourmet: procurement and wholesale supply of daily consumer goods in several EU and non-EU countries and, through the Bell Food Group, production of processed meat products, spices/condiments and a variety of convenience products.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10252 — Transgourmet Group/General Markets Food Iberica

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
* 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. 96-10280 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus CRAIG E. CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-95-T
- - - - - - - - - - April 24, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Craig E. Caldwell appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for release pending trial. The district court's decision rests on its conclusion that Caldwell is a danger to any other person or the community and that no conditions will reasonably assure safety. That conclusion is supported by the record. See United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 940 (1993). Caldwell has also filed a motion for release pending appeal. The motion is DENIED, and the district court's detention order is AFFIRMED.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50125

 Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELMER DEAL ALLISON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-89-CR-014

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elmer Dean Allison has filed a motion with this court to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). "To proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his

appeal must not be frivolous." Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't,

811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

Allison appeals from the district court's denial of his

"Motion Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 3572-73" to correct an "error" in

his sentencing. In his appellant's brief, Allison makes clear
No. 95-50125

-2-

that he is relying upon "18 U.S.C. §§ 3572-73." Neither section,

however, provides jurisdiction to the district court to consider

such a motion.

Section 3572 provides, in relevant part, that a sentence to

pay a fine is a final judgment for all purposes, unless it can be

"(1) modified or remitted under section 3573; (2) corrected under

rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section

3742; or (3) appealed and modified under section 3742." 18

U.S.C. § 3572(c) (emphasis added). None of these subsections

apply to Allison. A guidelines sentence may be modified under 18

U.S.C. § 3573 or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 only upon

petition by the Government. 18 U.S.C. § 3573; Fed. R. Crim.

P. 35(b). The provisions for modification of a sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3742 are available to a defendant only upon direct

appeal of a sentence or conviction; this court may not review his

sentence on this non-direct appeal. See Williams v. United

States, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1118-21 (1992); United States v. Early,

27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 600 (1994). 

Because the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain

Allison's motion under either 18 U.S.C. § 3572 or § 3573, its

denial was proper.

Allison's appeal does not raise a non-frivolous legal issue. 

Therefore, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.