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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20525

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO SALAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-149-3 

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Salas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute 100

kilograms of marijuana and aiding and abetting in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841

is unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by

United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000),

but states that he is raising it to preserve it for possible
No. 03-20525

-2-

Supreme Court review. The argument that Apprendi rendered 21

U.S.C. § 841 facially unconstitutional was rejected in Slaughter. 

We are bound by this precedent absent an intervening Supreme

Court decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United

States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore,

this issue is foreclosed.

Salas argues that the supervised release condition which

prohibits him from possessing dangerous weapons conflicts with

the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence and must

be deleted. The Sentencing Guidelines recommend that all

defendants who have been convicted of a felony be prohibited from

possessing any dangerous weapon during the term of supervised

release. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(1). “If the district court orally

imposes a sentence without stating the conditions applicable to

this period of supervision, the judgment’s inclusion of

conditions that are mandatory, standard, or recommended by the

Sentencing Guidelines does not create a conflict with the oral

pronouncement.” United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934,

938 (5th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned executive officer of Community Investors Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB
for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

                                  /s/Thomas G. Kalb
                                  ---------------------------
                                  Name: Thomas G. Kalb
                                  Title: Vice President,
                                  Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 12, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Community Investors Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                           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 Annual Report of Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dr. Stephen A. Levine, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.

Dated:  March 30, 2005


                                       By:  /s/  Stephen A. Levine
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Dr. Stephen A. Levine
                                       Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                       Financial Officer

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 Allergy Research Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Allergy Research Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.1
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

</LEGEND>

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                    OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            1,767
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     93,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      1,998
<INVENTORY>                                                       66,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  186,497
<PP&E>                                                            68,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    21,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    302,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             74,870
<BONDS>                                                           143,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          76
<OTHER-SE>                                                        75,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      302,061
<SALES>                                                           472,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  472,985
<CGS>                                                             335,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     335,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                17,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   29,195
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      11,692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               17,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      17,503
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       2.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     2.27


</PRE>
</BODY>
[/HTML]

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000930548
<NAME> RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         111,822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,701
<PP&E>                                         560,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 708,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,010
<BONDS>                                        220,852
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                     377,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   708,719
<SALES>                                         29,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,692
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,805
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                        649,826
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        420,041
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 3,021,102
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                0
<LOANS>                                    69,101,178
<ALLOWANCE>                                   330,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             75,687,637
<DEPOSITS>                                 63,951,529
<SHORT-TERM>                                1,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         1,218,547
<LONG-TERM>                                   623,292
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        6,714
<OTHER-SE>                                  8,901,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             75,687,637
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             1,456,394
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              74,976
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            1,531,370
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            892,439
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            908,822
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         622,548
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               348,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               385,727
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    385,727
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  250,801
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      0
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
BATTS v. CLAYTON.

No. COA06-1182.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007.

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 283730).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. David FELTON.

No. 32P98-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State.

*701*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd day of May 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of November 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th day of September 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of November 2007."
#### Abderrahmane Mjahdi, Respondent, v Eamon Maguire et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[802 NYS2d 700]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Eamon Maguire and Eddie Maguire appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated September 10, 2004, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for *1068leave to enter a judgment against them upon their failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to avoid the entry of a default judgment upon their failure to appear or answer, the appellants were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp.,*18 AD3d 864 [2005]; *Hegarty v Ballee,*18 AD3d 706 [2005]; *Bergdoll v Pentecoste,*17 AD3d 613 [2005]; *Pampalone v Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc.,*17 AD3d 556 [2005]). “The decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor” *(MacMarty, Inc. v Scheller,*201 AD2d 706, 707 [1994]; *see Bergdoll v Pentecoste, supra*at 614).

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a judgment against them upon their failure to appear or answer. In opposition to the motion, the appellants’ attorney claimed that his clients could not “recall exactly” what they did with the complaint served upon them, and that while they believed they might have sent the complaint to his law firm, his firm never received it. These allegations do not constitute a reasonable excuse for the appellants’ default in appearing or serving a timely answer *(see Pampalone v Giant Bldg. Maintenance, supra*at 557; *Abrams v City of New York,*13 AD3d 566 [2004]). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the appellants sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense *(see Krieger v Cohan,*18 AD3d 823 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
# Council Decision 2014/326/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2014/326/CFSP of 28 January 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union            and the Republic of Korea establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Korea in European Union crisis            management operations         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2014/326/CFSP                     

# of 28 January 2014

# on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea establishing a framework                        for the participation of the Republic of Korea in European Union crisis management operations                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and                           (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)Conditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down                              in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than being defined on a case-by-case                              basis for each operation concerned.

(2)Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 13 November 2012 authorising the opening of negotiations, the High                              Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy negotiated an agreement between the European Union and                              the Republic of Korea establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Korea in European Union crisis management                              operations (‘the Agreement’).

(3)The Agreement should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic                     of Korea in the European Union crisis management operations is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.                  

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind                     the Union.                  

# Article 3U.K.

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement(1).                  

# Article 4U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

G. Stournaras                            

1

The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* by the General Secretariat of the Council.
##### 



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 Annual Report of Covad
 Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher Dunn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and (2)   The information contained
 in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company. COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.By:
    /s/ Christopher DunnChristopher DunnDate: March 1, 2006
    
    Senior Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
In the Matter of IBM Credit Corp.

No. 520A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 20, 2007.

S.C. Kitchen, Durham, for Durham County.

Michael T. Medford, Judson A. Welborn, Raleigh, for IBM Credit Corp.

James B. Blackburn, III, Lucy Chavis, Assistant County Attorney, for NC Asso. of County Comm.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of December 2007 by Appellee for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Appellee shall have up to and including the 4th day of January 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of December 2007."
# C_2023155EN.01003102.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/31 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Y.N. v Republika Slovenija (Case C-58/23, Abboudnam ( 1 )) (2023/C 155/41) Language of the case: Slovenian Referring court Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Y.N. Defendant: Republika Slovenija Question referred Must Article 46(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU, ( 2 ) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, ( 3 ) be interpreted as precluding a national procedural rule, such as the second sentence of Article 70(1) of the ZMZ-1, which provides, for the lodging of an appeal against a decision by which the competent authority rejects an application as manifestly unfounded under an accelerated procedure, a time limit of three days from the notification of such a decision, including public holidays, which may expire at the end of the first working day thereafter? ( 1 )  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. ( 2 )  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60). ( 3 )  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).

---