alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 5, 2006

BY EMAIL

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: —_ Revised Implementation Date for Brink’s Inc. Silver Deposito:
Submission No. 06-60

Dear CFTC Commissioners:

The New York Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“NYMEX” or the “Exchange”) in its Submission No.
05-98 dated June 3, 2005 to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or
“Commission”), requested CFTC approval for a proposed amendment to Supplement No. 2,
“Licensed Depositories and Weighmasters for Silver” of the Silver Futures Contract to be
implemented effective Monday, October 3, 2005. Specifically, the amendment would add the
Brink’s Inc facility located at 184-45 147” Avenue, Springfield Gardens, New York as an
Exchange Licensed Depository for the storage of silver deliverable against the Exchange’s Silver
Futures Contract. Implementation of the proposed amendment depends on completion of
Conditions Precedent established by the Exchange and specified in its Submission to the
Commission. The Commission approved the proposed amendment and the October 3, 2005
implementation date (Correspondence dated June 27, 2005). As the Conditions Precedent were
not met by that date, the Exchange informed the Commission a revised implementation date was
established for January 3, 2006 (Correspondence dated October 13, 2005) for which the
Conditions Precedent were also not met.

The Conditions Precedent have now been completed. The Exchange is informing the
Commission that the new rule date will become effective June 12, 2006.

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the
Exchange hereby certifies that the attached rule amendment complies with the Act, including
regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Jay Gottlieb at (212) 299-
2607.

Very truly yours,

Robert A. Levin
Senior Vice President - Research
#### Magdalen Richards, Individually and as Executrix of William J. Richards, Deceased, Respondent, v Angela Bartholomew, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 404]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Peter E. Corning, A.J.), entered July 25, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: This action was commenced by plaintiff and plaintiffs decedent, who died during the pendency of the action, whereupon plaintiff was substituted as executrix of decedent’s estate. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of decedent, seeks damages for injuries they sustained when the vehicle operated by decedent in which plaintiff was a passenger collided with a vehicle operated by defendant. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the *1406complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met her initial burden of establishing that she was operating her vehicle in a lawful and prudent manner when the vehicle operated by decedent unexpectedly entered her lane and that there was no evasive action that she could have taken to avoid the accident *(see Fratangelo v Benson,*294 AD2d 880, 881 [2002]; *Pilarski v Consolidated Rail Corp.,*269 AD2d 821 [2000]), we conclude that plaintiffs expert raised a triable issue of fact on the issue whether defendant could have taken evasive action to avoid the accident *(see Esposito v Wright,*28 AD3d 1142, 1143-1144 [2006]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Garni, Green and Pine, JJ.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50209

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

JUAN ANTONIO LUBO,

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-3040-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Antonio Lubo appeals the forty six month sentence imposed by the

district court following his conviction for illegally reentering the United States

after having been deported. The sentence was at the bottom of the Guidelines

range, but Lubo argues that considering his military service, cultural

assimilation, and motive for returning to the United States, his sentence was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-50209

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal

1

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Id.

2

See id. at 339.

3

2

substantively unreasonable and the district court should have departed

downward from the recommended range.

When the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated

Guidelines range and gives proper weight to the Guidelines and the § 3553(a)

factors, this court gives “great deference to that sentence and will infer that the

judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines

in light of the sentencing considerations set out in § 3553(a).” “A discretionary 1

sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable.”2

Lubo’s military service, cultural assimilation, and motive for returning

were considered by the district court. Further, if the district court had concluded

that application of U.S.S.G section 2L1.2 resulted in an advisory range that

overstated Lubo’s criminal history, it would not have been precluded from

deviating from the advisory range. The court did not do so, but instead chose 3

a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Lubo has not shown the

district court abused its discretion.

Lubo also argues his sentence was excessive because it failed to account

for the sentence disparity between defendants like himself, who cannot avail

themselves of the fast track program, and defendants in districts which have

such a program. As Lubo acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by this
No. 09-50209

 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008). 4

See United States v. Mask, 330 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 2003). 5

3

court’s decision in United States v. Gomez-Herrera. Absent en banc 4

consideration or a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court, one panel of this

court may not overrule a prior panel’s decision.5

Accordingly, the district court’s ruling is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

          - 10 CFR Part 431 
          - RIN 1904-AB06 

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy (DOE). 

# ACTION:

Final rule; completion of regulatory review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On January 12, 2001, DOE published in the                         **Federal Register**                         the final rule entitled “Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment” (66 FR 3336). In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), DOE temporarily delayed for 60 days the effective date of that rule (66 FR 8745, February 2, 2001). DOE has now completed its review of that regulation, and does not intend to initiate any further rulemaking action to modify its provisions.                     

# DATES:

The effective date of the rule amending 10 CFR part 431 published at 66 FR 3336, January 12, 2001, and delayed at 66 FR 8745, February 2, 2001, is confirmed as April 13, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jill Holtzman, Office of General Counsel, (202) 586-3410,                         *jill.holtzman@hq.doe.gov*                         or Lawrence R. Oliver, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 586-9521,                         *lawrence.oliver@hq.doe.gov*                         or Cyrus Nasseri, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (202) 586-9138,                         *cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov.*

Issued in Washington, DC on May 14, 2001. 

Spencer Abraham, 

Secretary of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 01-12686 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

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 filing of Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) by CapSource Financial, Inc.
(Registrant), I, Steven J. Kutcher, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

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.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to CapSource Financial, Inc. and will be retained by CapSource Financial,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|DATE: January 17, 2007 | By: | /s/ Steven J. Kutcher                           
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------
|                       |     |                                                 
|                       |     | Name: Steven J. Kutcher                         
|                       |     | Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer

---
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





The
undersigned, Menachem M.
Schneerson, the President, Chief Executive Officer,


and
Director of Watchtower, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set
forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.








Date: May
14, 2009





By.
            /s/
      Menachem M.
      SchneersonName:
            Menachem M.
      SchneersonTitle:
            President,
      Chief Executive Officer and Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)




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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6933-7] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to enter into a “Prospective Purchaser Agreement” (P.A.) concerning property that has been potentially contaminated by releases from the Ward Transformer Superfund Site (Ward Site) in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina (P.A. Property). EPA proposes to enter into the P.A. with Brier Creek Commons LP (Brier Creek LP). The P.A. obligates Brier Creek LP to cooperate fully with any response action EPA may take on the P.A. Property. The P.A. resolves Brier Creek LP's potential liability for the Existing Contamination at the Ward Site and/or the P.A. Property which may otherwise result from it obtaining an easement across the P.A. Property and constructing a roadway. This protection is contingent upon Brier Creek LP fulfilling its obligations under the P.A. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. 

EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Bachelor, Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104, 404/562-8887. 

Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Bachelor at the address noted above within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this publication. 

Dated: December 27, 2000.

James T. Miller,

Acting Chief, CERCA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-1348 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00138-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D.D., III, a Child

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA02283

Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order of Termination 

is AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED. It is ORDERED that no costs be 

assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because appellant qualifies as indigent under 

TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED August 7, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
# C_2018022EN.01005302.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/53

---

Action brought on 17 November 2017 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)

(Case T-758/17)

(2018/C 022/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements‘PERFECT BAR’ — Application for registration No 15 374 085

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 in Case R 2439/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the registration of the mark applied for, this is, the European Union Trademark application no. 015374085 ‘PERFECT BAR’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the registration of the mark applied for, this is, the European Union Trademark application no. 015374085 ‘PERFECT BAR’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and the EUIPO.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 887 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 887

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th 
   Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2009

Mr. Loebsack (for himself, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Boswell, Mr. King of 
Iowa, and Mr. Latham) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th 
   Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th Street in 
Davenport, Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``James A. Leach 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James A. Leach 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re Dennis J. COOK, Debtor, Weneta M.A. Kosmala, Chapter 11 Trustee, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Dennis James Cook, Appellant, v. Dennis James Cook; Donald D. Cook, Jr., Successor Trustee of the Donald D. Cook and Nancy A Cook Revocable Trust, Appellees.

No. 08-60053.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 2010.*

Filed March 9, 2010.

Jeffrey Ian Golden, Esquire, Weiland Golden Smiley Wang Ekvall *&*Strok, Cos-ta Mesa, CA, for Appellant.

William Miles Burd, Burd *&*Naylor, Santa Ana, CA, Keith S. Dobbins, Esquire, Keith S. Dobbins Law Offices, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellees.

Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Because property devised to an inter vivos trust from a will “is not deemed to be held under a testamentary trust of the testator but becomes a part of the trust to which it is given,” Cal. Prob.Code § 6300, the real property at issue here became a part of the inter vivos trust to which it was devised. We have held that “ ‘income distributions derived from an intervivos trust do not fit within’ the definition of *792§ 541(a)(5)(A) and therefore escape ‘the pale of the 180 day dragnet.’ ” *Neuton v. Danning (In re Neuton),*922 F.2d 1379, 1384 n. 6 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting *Newman v. Magill,*99 B.R. 881, 884-85 (C.D.Ill. 1989)). Therefore, the Debtor’s interest in the inter vivos trust assets is not property of the bankruptcy estate.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Playtime Boutique, Inc., Appellant, v Phyllis Fraccola, Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Playtime Boutique, Inc., Appellant, v Phyllis Fraccola, Individually and as Sole Shareholder of Hydrania, Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

Submitted May 3, 2010;

decided June 15, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### JACKSON v. A WOMAN’S CHOICE, INC.

No. 391P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 590

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1939
DANE C. JORGENSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusPUTT PUTT GOLF COURSES OF RICHMOND, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Putt Putt Golf and Games, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virgi nia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1027-3) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dane C. Jorgensen, Appellant Pro Se. Daryl Eugene Webb, Jr., MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the employer's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Appellant's claim filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jorgensen v. Putt Putt Golf Courses of Richmond, Inc. , No. CA-95-1027-3 (E.D. Va. May 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED