alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua Nehemiah REYNA, also known as Joshua Nemiah Reyna, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51003

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western *379District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Michael Hurley, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joshua Nehemiah Reyna appeals the mandatory consecutive 60-month and 300-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. Reyna argues that the sentences are cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses committed. Because Reyna failed to object on this ground in the district court, review is for plain error. *See United States v. Howard,*220 F.3d 645, 647 (5th Cir.2000). In comparison to the life sentence imposed in *Rummel v. Estelle,*445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), on a non-violent criminal pursuant to a recidivist statute, and the 30-year sentence imposed in *United States v. Gonzales,*121 F.3d 928, 943-44 (5th Cir.1997), on a non-habitual offender convicted of using or carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, the sentences imposed on Reyna are not grossly disproportionate to his offenses. *See Gonzales,*121 F.3d at 943; *McGruder v. Puckett,*954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.1992).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
      a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Neal R. VerfuerthNeal R. VerfuerthChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002)  In connection with the filing by Five Star Quality Care, Inc. (the Company) of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/   Bruce J. Mackey Jr.Bruce   J. Mackey Jr.President   and Chief Executive Officer/s/   Paul V. HoaglandPaul   V. HoaglandTreasurer   and Chief Financial OfficerDate:     February 23,   2011
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 20, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00547-CV

PERFECTO RODRIGUEZ, II, Appellant

V.

JUDITH SLAGLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-06378

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Molberg

This appeal challenges the associate judge’s final judgment dismissing 

appellant’s claims against appellee for failure to replead. Because an associate 

judge’s judgment is not appealable until signed by the referring court, see TEX.

GOV’T. CODE ANN. § 54A.116(b), and nothing before us reflected the referring court

had signed the judgment, we requested appellant to file a letter brief addressing the 

jurisdictional issue. Although appellant complied, nothing therein demonstrates our 
–2–

jurisdiction. Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

230547f.p05

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PERFECTO RODRIGUEZ, II, 

Appellant

No. 05-23-00547-CV V.

JUDITH SLAGLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-06378.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Molberg. Justices Carlyle and Smith 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 20th day of October, 2023.
#### Randi Rhodes, Also Known as Randi Robertson, Appellant, v Steven Edward Herz et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 17, 2011;

decided December 15, 2011

Reported below, 84 AD3d 1.

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.
# C_2010315EN.01000301.xml

| 19.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/3

---

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011 under certain quotas opened by the European Union for poultry meat, eggs and egg albumin

2010/C 315/03

Commission Regulations (EC) No 533/2007 (1), (EC) No 536/2007 (2) and (EC) No 539/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultry meat, eggs and egg albumin. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2010 do not, for quotas 09.4068, 09.4070, 09.4169, 09.4015 and 09.4402, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (4), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 January to 31 March 2011; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

1

2

3

4

---

(1)  OJ L 125, 15.5.2007, p. 9.

1

(2)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

2

(3)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19.

3

(4)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

4

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4068 | 3 727 000 |
| 09.4070 | 582 500 |
| 09.4169 | 8 332 500 |
| 09.4015 | 67 500 000 |
| 09.4402 | 5 848 176 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011

(in kg)

09.4068

3 727 000

09.4070

582 500

09.4169

8 332 500

09.4015

67 500 000

09.4402

5 848 176

---
# C_2010093EN.01000701.xml

| 13.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/7

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 93/04

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.11.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 470/08 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Pomoc na działania rewitalizacyjne |
| Legal basis | Artykuł 21 ust. 3 ustawy z dnia 6 grudnia 2006 r. o zasadach prowadzenia polityki rozwoju |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development, Culture, Heritage conservation |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 500 million |
| Intensity | 75 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Instytucje Zarządzające RPO, czyli 16 Zarządów Województw |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.11.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 470/08

Member State

Poland

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Pomoc na działania rewitalizacyjne

Legal basis

Artykuł 21 ust. 3 ustawy z dnia 6 grudnia 2006 r. o zasadach prowadzenia polityki rozwoju

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development, Culture, Heritage conservation

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 500 million

Intensity

75 %

Duration (period)

Until 2013

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Instytucje Zarządzające RPO, czyli 16 Zarządów Województw

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
# C_2010104EN.01001501.xml

| 23.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/15

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2010/C 104/08

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Trichloroisocyanuric acid | People's Republic of China
  United States of America | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 (OJ L 261, 7.10.2005, p. 1) | 8.10.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Trichloroisocyanuric acid

People's Republic of China

United States of America

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 (OJ L 261, 7.10.2005, p. 1)

8.10.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---
**Exhibit 4.28**

 

**Summary of a share acquisition agreement between Cemig (Companhia Energética De Minas Gerais) and the State of Minas Gerais**

 

On December 27, 2011, Companhia Energética De Minas Gerais – Cemig (“**Cemig**”) authorized the acquisition of 10,781,736 (ten million, seven hundred eighty one thousand seven hundred and thirty six) nominal common shares and 7,132,773 (seven million, one hundred thirty two thousand, seven hundred and seventy three) nominal preferred shares, representing 4.38% of the total capital of Companhia de Gás de Minas Gerais — Gasmig (“**Gasmig**”), belonging to the State of Minas Gerais (the “**State**”).

 

The price of the acquisition is R$ 67.22 million, for 4.38% of the total capital of Gasmig, which was paid on December 28, 2011.

 

The acquisition price corresponds to a price per share of approximately R$ 3.75 (three Reais and seventy five centavos), to be adjusted to the value of an Independent Valuation Opinion, which will be prepared by a specialized institution, to be chosen and contracted by Cemig.

 

The acquisition is conditioned, further, upon full and complete transfer of the equity interest in Gasmig, which is currently in the name of MGI-Minas Gerais Participações S.A., to the State.

 

----
#### In re: BRANFORD PARTNERS, LLC, Debtor, All-Tex, Inc., Appellant, v. Branford Partners, LLC; Bert F. Fornaciari, individually and as cotrustee of the Fornaciari Family Revocable Truste Dated January 15, 2002; Linda Cox Fornaciari, individually and as co-trustee of the Fornaciari Family RevocableTrust dated January 15, 2003; California Environmental Redevelopment Fund; MCOM, LLC, Appellees.

No. 08-60052.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2010.

Filed March 25, 2010.

Cynthia Futter, Esquire, Futter-Wells, PC, Santa Monica, CA, for Debtor.

Anne Wells, Futter-Wells, PC, Santa Monica, CA, for Appellant.

David S. Kupetz, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, Sulmeyerkupetz, A. Professional Corporation, Beth Ann Young, Esquire, Levene Neale Bender Rankin *&*Brill, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert Dale Gin-ter, Kelly L. Pope, Downey Brand, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Appellees.

Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

We have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel under 28 U.S.C. § 158, and we affirm.

Branford Partners, LLC, was not required to plead in a separate adversary proceeding its avoidance powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544 and § 545 as a defense to All-Tex, Inc.’s alleged liens and interests in the property, and the bankruptcy court properly treated Branford’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. *See*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7001, 7012, 7056; *Chbat v. Tleel (In re Tleel),*876 F.2d 769, 770 (9th Cir.1989); *Grove v. Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354,*753 F.2d 1528, 1532-33 (9th Cir.1985).

A bona fide purchaser under California law would not have had constructive or inquiry notice of All-Tex’s alleged liens and interests in the property because All-Tex did not record its interests in the title record, did not file a *lis pendens,*and did not have clear and open possession of the property in a manner that contradicted record title. *See, e.g., Robertson v. Peters (In re Weisman),*5 F.3d 417, 420-21 (9th Cir.1993); *Nat’l Bank of Alaska, N.A.*v. *Erickson (In re Seaway Express Corp.),*912 F.2d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir.1990); *Tleel,*876 F.2d at 772. Neither the property’s possible use as a landfill nor the reference to the contract in the city’s files would have put a reasonably prudent purchaser on constructive or inquiry notice of the alleged liens and interests. *See Probasco v. Eads (In re Probasco),*839 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.1988).

The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that Branford could avoid All-Tex’s alleged liens and interests in the property, and that All-Tex could not as*859sert a separate claim for specific performance. *See Weisman,*5 F.3d at 419-21; *see also Sherwood Partners, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc.,*394 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir.2005); *Aslan v. Sycamore Inv. Co. (In re Aslan),*909 F.2d 367, 370-71 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2010096EN.01002501.xml

| 16.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 93 of 13 April 2010
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 93 of 13 April 2010

2010/C 96/09

On page 5:

for:

| ‘Reference number of State Aid | N 179/09’, |
| --- | --- |

‘Reference number of State Aid

N 179/09’,

read:

| ‘Reference number of State Aid | N 179/08’. |
| --- | --- |

‘Reference number of State Aid

N 179/08’.

---
# Exhibit 99.2

NEWS RELEASE

---

|CONTACT:                |  |                         | 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|Sam Reinkensmeyer       |  | Joseph Diaz, Jr.        | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  | Lytham Partners, LLC    | 
|CNS, Inc.               |  | (602) 889-9700          | 
|(952) 229-1500          |  | diaz@lythampartners.com | 
|sreinkensmeyer@cns.com  | 
|Nasdaq: CNXS            | 

# CNS, Inc. Declares Quarterly Dividend

MINNEAPOLIS, August 2, 2006
 CNS, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNXS), the Breathe Right® company, today announced that its board of directors has
declared a quarterly cash dividend of seven cents per share of common stock. The dividend is payable on September 8, 2006, to
shareholders of record as of August 25, 2006.

We are pleased to
announce another quarterly dividend for our shareholders due to our continued strong financial performance, said Marti
Morfitt, president and chief executive officer of CNS. This action reflects the continued confidence of the board in our
current and long-term financial performance.

CNS declared its first
quarterly dividend in August 2003 and then raised the dividend payment in June 2004, June 2005 and May 2006. The company has
approximately 14 million shares outstanding.

About CNS, Inc.
CNS, based in Minneapolis, designs and markets consumer health care products, including Breathe Right® nasal
strips and FiberChoice® dietary fiber supplements. The company focuses on products that address important consumer
needs within the aging well/self-care market, including better breathing and digestive health. Its common stock is listed on the
Nasdaq National Market under the ticker symbol CNXS. More information about CNS and its products is available at
www.cns.com.

Some of the information
contained in this news release is forward-looking and subject to certain business risks as described in the companys filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those referred to in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
March 31, 2006. This news release contains forward-looking statements, which involve risks and uncertainties.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Subcommittee of the Air 
University Board of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

    The AFIT Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors will 
hold an open meeting on March 25-27, 2001, with the first business 
session beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the Commandant's Conference Room, 
Building 125, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. (Five seats are 
available.)
    The purpose of the meeting is to give the Board an opportunity to 
review Air Force Institute of Technology's educational programs and to 
present to the Commandant a report of their findings and 
recommendations concerning these programs.
    For further information on this meeting, contact Ms. Beverly Houtz 
in the Directorate of Resources, Air Force Institute of Technology, 
(937) 255-5760.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-1394 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
```
#### Wanzel J. Grogg, Appellant, v Antoinette M. Grogg, Respondent.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered January 31, 1989 in Warren County, which, *inter alia,*continued a prior order granting defendant exclusive possession of the marital residence and awarded child support pendente lite.

In this divorce action, plaintiff appeals from a pendente lite order which granted defendant’s motion for exclusive occupancy of the marital home and further ordered plaintiff to pay temporary child support of $125 weekly. In her affidavits, defendant has alleged that plaintiff broke into the marital home during her absence and removed furniture, appliances, tools, camping equipment and some personal possessions be*803longing to her and their son. She has also alleged serious marital discord and financial need.

Ordinarily, exclusive possession of a marital residence will not be ordered unless there is a showing that such possession is necessary to protect the safety of persons or property *(Kilmer v Kilmer,*109 AD2d 1004; *Freihofer v Freihofer,*91 AD2d 815; *Gandelman v Gandelman,*90 AD2d 494; *Hite v Hite,*89 AD2d 577; *Vallet v Vallet,*86 AD2d 741). However, the standard for granting exclusive possession is not so inflexible as to exclude any circumstances warranting judicial intervention (De*lli Venneri v Delli Venneri,*120 AD2d 238). The presence of marital strife can be a recognized standard for an award of exclusive possession *(supra,*at 240; *see also, Wolfe v Wolfe,*111 AD2d 809). On the facts adduced, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for Supreme Court to award defendant exclusive possession of the marital home prior to trial *(cf., Scampoli v Scampoli,*37 AD2d 614).

Nor do we find evidence sufficient to hold that Supreme Court abused its discretion in awarding child support of $125 per week on a temporary basis. Defendant has alleged her financial need and that of her son, as well as plaintiffs ability to pay child support. It has been consistently held that the best solution for perceived inequities in pendente lite support is an early trial *(Schlosberg v Schlosberg,*130 AD2d 735; *Harrilal v Harrilal,*128 AD2d 502; *Berger v Berger,*125 AD2d 285).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.