alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51167

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SELVIN LEONEL HERRERA-MEJIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:06-CR-357-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Selvin Leonel

Herrera-Mejia raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10522

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO TAFOYA, also known as Rudolfo Tapioa,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-258-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Tafoya appeals the 21-month within-guidelines sentence and 

three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea 

conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process 

because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

However, he correctly concedes that whether a prior conviction must be alleged 

in the indictment and proved to a jury before a sentencing enhancement under 

§ 1326(b) can be applied is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10522 Document: 00514370204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
No. 17-10522

2

523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 

2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10522 Document: 00514370204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
Betty FLOYD, petitioner, v. GLENN GARDENS ASSOCIATES, et al.

No. 17-5231.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
# C_2009244EN.01001201.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/12

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Unicid v Commission

(Case T-305/09)

2009/C 244/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Union nationale interprofessionnelle cidricole (Unicid) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008, (1) by which the Commission found that the framework for actions liable to be carried out by French inter-branch organisations, consisting in aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing for quality products, for research and development and marketing for primary producers and undertakings engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products, financed through voluntary levies made compulsory by inter-ministerial decree, to be collected from the members of those inter-branch organisations, were a measure constituting State aid compatible with the common market.

1

The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission and Case T-302/09 CNIPT v Commission.

CNIEL

Commission

CNIPT

Commission

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.

1

---
# C_2010024EN.01006702.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/67

---

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER)

(Case T-480/09)

2010/C 24/119

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1045/2008-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1045/2008-4.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 935 185) in respect of services in Class 35.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Nathaniel Lee JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8677.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
1254.

#### Hunter *v.*The State.

Indictment for carrying concealed weapon, from Habersham superior *court-*— -Judge Kimsey. May 18, *1908.*

Submitted June 14,

Decided September 28, 1908.

*J. C. Edwards,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. A. Charters, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. While “the existence of a fact testified to by one positive witness is rather to be believed than that such fact did not exist because many witnesses who had the same opportunity of observation swear that they did not see or know of its having transpired,” nevertheless the weight of the testimony as a whole is for the jury; and ordinarily they are not absolutely bound to accept positive in preference to negative testimony. *Innis*v. *State,*42 *Ga.*474.

*2.*When two persons llave equal facilities for seeing or hearing a thing, and one swears that it occurred and the other that it did not, the testimony of neither witness is negative, within the purview of the foregoing rule. Civil Code, §5165.

3. The foregoing principles are applicable to the trial of a criminal case for the carrying of concealed weapons, where the witnesses for the State testify that the defendant’s person was in their view, that she drew a pistol from under the cover of an apron she wore, and that it was hidden from view till she drew it, and the witnesses for the defendant testify that she had the pistol in her hand, by her side, open to view and not under the apron. - *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2010063EN.01002201.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst

(Case C-499/09)

2010/C 63/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the sale of dishes or meals prepared for immediate consumption constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the sale of dishes or meals prepared for immediate consumption constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

1

| 2. | Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether additional service elements are supplied (the provision, for use, of tables, chairs and other facilities for consumption, the experience of a visit to the cinema)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether additional service elements are supplied (the provision, for use, of tables, chairs and other facilities for consumption, the experience of a visit to the cinema)?

| 3. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering only ‘take away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering only ‘take away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1

1

---
Exhibit 10.1

 

Amendment to the Wayside Technology Group, Inc. 2012 Stock-Based Compensation Plan

 

Section 5(a) of the Wayside Technology Group, Inc. 2012 Stock-Based Compensation Plan is amended and restated as follows:

 

“(a)                           Subject to the following provisions of this Section, the maximum number of shares that may be delivered to Participants (or, if applicable, their heirs, legatees or permitted transferees) under the Plan shall not exceed 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock. Any shares issued under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and unissued shares or treasury shares.”
# C_2011252EN.01002707.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal)) — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Zurich Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

(Case C-363/10) (1)

1

2011/C 252/58

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
Mark A. BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN, petitioner, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, et al.

No. 16-9648.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Conference call with SIFMA
  
    



  Industry solutions regarding UCI (LEI)
      
  When
              03/08/2011

  Rulemaking(s)
              XVI. Swap Data Repositories Registration

  CFTC Staff
              Irina LeonovaDavid Taylor

  Visitor(s)
              David StronginTom Price

  Organization(s)
              SIFMA


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
II-00754

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

bill hay <williamhay@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:39 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

bill hay

2630 Orchard St. Spc21

Soquel, CA 95073
WASHINGTON TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, et al., petitioners, v. WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 17-145.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington denied.
Crystal Yvette MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5136.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Robaenon Trequan ALEXIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7270.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II-00642

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Norine Grace <norinebernie715 @gmail. corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:59 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Norine Grace

16605 - 87th Ave SW

Vashon, WA 98070
William DYE, petitioner, v. Ron BARNES, Warden.

No. 17-8412.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 14, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

136177 & (78) Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

DAVID CHAMNESS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 136177 

v COA: 267691 

Kalamazoo CC: 04-000658-AV 

MATTHEW S. DEPERNO,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

STEPHEN J. HESSEN, STEPHEN l. SIMONS,

J. RYAN CONBOY and KREIS, ENDERLE,

CALLANDER & HUDGINS, P.C., 

 Defendants. 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by the attorneys for the 

parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 14, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           7,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,274
<INVENTORY>                                     31,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,420
<PP&E>                                          65,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,310
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,913
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,973
<SALES>                                        243,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,864
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   748
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,025
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>