alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40706 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Victor Alfonso Rodriguez**

**- Martinez,** 
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:20

- CR

- 48

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Alfonso Rodriguez

- Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez

- Martinez has not filed a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 6, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40706 Document: 00515926482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2021No. 20

- 40706

2 response. We have reviewed counsel ’ s brie f and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel ’ s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel ’ s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. The record, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment states that Rodriguez

- Martinez was convicted of violating “ 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 1226(b) ” rather than § 1326(a) and § 1326(b). Accordingly, we **REMAND** for corre ction of the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Case: 20-40706 Document: 00515926482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
# C_2023321EN.01002402.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší Správny súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 13 June 2023 — Mesto Rimavská Sobota v Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva a rozvoja vidieka Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-370/23, Mesto Rimavská Sobota)

(2023/C 321/30)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší Správny súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mesto Rimavská Sobota

Defendant Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva a rozvoja vidieka Slovenskej republiky

Question referred

Is Article 2(b) of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market to be interpreted as meaning that the placing on the market of timber also constitutes a sale for consideration of raw timber or fuel wood within the meaning of Annex 1 to that regulation, if, under the harvest concession agreement, the purchaser harvests the timber under the direction and supervision of the seller?

---

(1)  
  OJ 2010 L 295, p. 23.

---
EXHIBIT 4.11

                             AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT


     THIS AMENDMENT is as of March 31, 2005, by and between (i) Tefron Ltd.
("Tefron" or the "Company"), an Israeli company, and (ii) Norfet, Limited
Partnership (the "Investor"), an Israeli limited partnership wholly owned by (x)
N.D.M.S Ltd., an Israeli private company, wholly owned by FIMI Opportunity Fund,
L.P., a limited partnership formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, (y)
FIMI Israel Opportunity Fund, Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, formed
under the laws of the State of Israel, and (z) certain designees and
co-investors listed in Exhibit A to the Original Agreement (defined below).

     WHEREAS, Tefron and the Investor are parties to a Share Purchase Agreement,
dated as of February 17, 2004 (the "Original Agreement") and desire to amend
Section 1(b) thereof.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree to amend the Original Agreement in
the manner described in this Amendment:

1.   AMENDMENT. The term "Additional Shares", defined in the last paragraph of
     Section 1(b) of the Original Agreement, shall be amended to mean an
     aggregate of 661,765 Ordinary Shares, which is the number of shares
     representing the sum of US$2,647,059 at a price of US$4 per share.

2.   OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Unless expressly set forth herein, all other
     terms and conditions set forth in the Original Agreement shall remain in
     full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have signed this Amendment as of the date first
hereinabove set forth.



TEFRON LTD.                                          NORFET, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

By: /s/ Gil. Rozen                                       By: /s/
    /s/  Yos Shiran                                          /s/
   ---------------                                       ----------------
   Name:                                                 Name:
   Title:                                                Title:
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. FERRARI.

No. 174P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Curt Euler, City Attorney, Joe Connolly, County Attorney, for City of Asheville.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of April 2008 by Defendant for Application in the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina for: Prohibition (# 2442), and Procedendo:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
Exhibit 23.2
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
    Board of Directors
 GameTech International, Inc.
 Reno, Nevada
 
 
 We have issued our report dated January 29, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of GameTech International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended November 1, 2009.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of GameTech International, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-167749 effective June 24, 2010, 333-122836 effective February 15, 2005, 333-72886 effective November 7, 2001, and 333-51411 effective April 30, 1998).
 
 
 /S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
 
 Reno, Nevada
 February 15, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: U.S. Fishermen Fishing in Russian Waters.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0228.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 1.
    Number of Respondents: 1.
    Average Hours Per Response: 1 hour.
    Needs and Uses: U.S. fishermen who wish to fish in the Russian 
Federation Economic Zone may apply for a Russian permit by submitting 
application information to the National Marine Fisheries Service for 
transmittal to Russian authorities. The permit holders must provide 
information regarding their permits and must report when entering or 
leaving the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ffbd7e6f1faf4dffbf0fcb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd99b584939896bd99929ed39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c783a6b1aea39895a8b4b3aca2b587a8aaa5e9a2a8b7e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dc9ecfbe4e9d2dfe2fef9e6e8ffcde2e0efa3e8e2fda3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 8, 2005.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18189 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                    CANNONDALE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR PER-SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                         SEPTEMBER 27,    SEPTEMBER 28,
                                                            1997              1996
                                                          ------            ------
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

Weighted average shares outstanding ..........             8,685             8,612

Net effect of options-
based on the treasury stock method ...........               256               440
                                                          ------            ------
Weighted average number of common shares
and equivalents outstanding during the period              8,941             9,052
                                                          ======            ======
Income applicable to common shares and
    equivalents ..............................            $  670            $  489
                                                          ======            ======
Net income per share .........................            $  .07            $  .05
                                                          ======            ======

FULLY DILUTED  EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

Weighted average shares outstanding ..........             8,685             8,612

Net effect of options-
based on the treasury stock method ...........               345               523
                                                          ------            ------
Weighted average number of common shares
and equivalents outstanding during the period              9,030             9,135
                                                          ======            ======
Income applicable to common shares and
    equivalents ..............................            $  670            $  489
                                                          ======            ======
Net income per share .........................            $  .07            $  .05
                                                          ======            ======
</TABLE>
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC v. GRAY, et al.

No. 108PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 7, 2015.

Debbie W. Harden, Meredith J. McKee, Charlotte, for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Jackson R. Price, Charlotte.

John R. Buric, Preston O. Odom, III, Charlotte, for Gray, Herbert A.

Fred W. DeVore, III, Charlotte, for Builder Support Services of the Carolinas, Inc., et. al. Derek P. Adler.

Erik M. Rosenwood, Charlotte, for Yarbrough-Williams & Houle, Inc.

*840Mark R. Kutny, Charlotte.

Lawrence J. Goldman, Charlotte, for Lucas-Forman, Inc.

Gregory W. Brown, Raleigh, for Carter Land Surveyors & Planners, Inc.

Kristi L. Gavalier, Raleigh.

Matthew D. Rhoad, Davis F. Roach, Raleigh, for Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., et. al.

Joseph W. Eason, D. Martin Warf, Raleigh, for N.C. Electric Membership Corporation, et. al.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for N.C. League of Municipalities.

Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, Daniel F. McLawhorn, Associate City Attorney, for N.C. League of Municipalities.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of August 2015 by Appellee:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of August 2015."

Appellee shall have up to and including the 3rd day of September 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 610 

To clarify the effective date of the modification of treatment for retirement 

annuity purposes of part-time service before April 7, 1986, of certain 

Department of Veterans Affairs health-care professionals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To clarify the effective date of the modification of treatment 

for retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before April 7, 1986, of certain Department of Veterans 

Affairs health-care professionals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 610 IS

1 SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATION OF TREAT2 MENT FOR RETIREMENT ANNUITY PURPOSES 

3 OF CERTAIN PART-TIME SERVICE OF CER4 TAIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

5 HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS. 

6 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The effective date of the 

7 amendment made by section 132 of the Department of 

8 Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act 

9 of 2001 (Public Law 107–135; 115 Stat. 2454) shall be 

10 January 23, 2002, in the case of health care professionals 

11 referred to in subsection (c) of section 7426 of title 38, 

12 United States Code (as so amended), who retire on or 

13 after that date and in the case of health care professionals 

14 referred to in such subsection (c) who retired before such 

15 date, but after April 7, 1986. 

16 (b) RECOMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.—The Office of 

17 Personnel Management shall recompute the annuity of 

18 each health-care professional described in the first sen19 tence of subsection (c) of section 7426 of title 38, United 

20 States Code (as so amended), who retired before January 

21 23, 2002, but after April 7, 1986, in order to take into 

22 account the amendment made by section 132 of the De23 partment of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs En24 hancement Act of 2001. Such recomputation shall be efVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:53 Feb 18, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S610.IS S610

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 610 IS

1 fective with respect to annuities paid for months after 

2 January 23, 2002. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
# The Iran (European Union Financial Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 105

Criminal Law

# The Iran (European Union Financial Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

at 12.45 p.m. on 21st January 2014

Laid before Parliament

at 3.30 p.m. on 21st January 2014

Coming into force

at 4.30 p.m. on 21st January 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (18.1.2016) by The Iran (European Union Financial Sanctions) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/36), **reg. 20(1)(d)** (with regs. 18, 21)
EXHIBIT 10.34
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
 Amendment Borrower Guarantor
  Credit Agreement
   Definitions
 Applicable Margin
 Range of
    
    ApplicableBorrower's
    
    Margin for
    
    ApplicableCredit Rating
    
    Base Rate
    
    Margin for Euro(S&P/Moodys
    
    Loans
    
    Dollar LoansRatings)
    

(% per annum)
    

(%
per annum)<BBB-/Baa3 or unrated
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    2.750BBB-/Baa3
    
    
    0.00
    
    
    
    1.425BBB/Baa2
    
    
    0.00
    
    
    
    1.175BBB+/Baa1
    
    
    0.00
    
    
    
    1.000A-/A3 or better
    
    
    0.00
    
    
    
    0.925
 Extension Option
 Effective Date Effective Date
 Representations and Warranties
 Entire Agreement
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
 Headings, Etc
 No Further Modifications




---



##### 



BORROWER:
    
    AMB PROPERTY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnershipBy:
    
    AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION, aMaryland corporation and its sole generalPartnerBy:
    
    /s/ Gayle P. StarrName: Gayle P. StarrTitle: Senior Vice President
 
  By:

/s/
Gayle P. StarrName:
    Gayle P. StarrTitle:
    Senior Vice President




---



##### 



JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative
Agent and as a BankBy:

/s/
Vanessa ChiuName:
    Vanessa ChiuTitle:
    Vice President




---



##### 



SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION, as
Syndication Agent and as a BankBy:

/s/
William
G. KarlName:
    William
G. KarlTitle:
    General Manager




---



##### 



HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
Documentation Agent and as a BankBy:

/s/
Jason
Alexander HuckName:
    Jason
Alexander HuckTitle:
    Vice President, Relationship Manager




---



##### 



U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION., as
Documentation Agent and as a BankBy:

/s/
Ben LewisName:
    Ben LewisTitle:
    Vice President




---



##### 



BANK OF CHINA, NEW YORK BRANCH., as
a BankBy:

/s/
William Warren SmithName:
    William Warren SmithTitle:
    Chief Lending Officer




---



##### 



PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as a BankBy:

/s/
Karen
KennedyName:
    Karen KennedyTitle:
    Vice President




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, ACTING
THROUGH ITS SAN FRANCISCO AGENCY,
as a BankBy:

/s/
Annabella
GuoName:
    Annabella GuoTitle:
    Director
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 645 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 645

 To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur 
   dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project 
                                 goals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2007

  Mr. Thomas (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Murkowski, and 
 Mr. Salazar) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur 
   dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project 
                                 goals.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE.

    Section 402(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
U.S.C. 15962(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking subclause (I) and 
inserting the following:
                                    ``(I)(aa) to remove at least 99 
                                percent of sulfur dioxide; or
                                    ``(bb) to emit not more than 0.04 
                                pound SO<INF>2</INF> per million Btu, 
                                based on a 30-day average;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Collier, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 851]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 24, 2003 *(People v Collier,*1 AD3d 606 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 31, 2001.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
IN RE A.B.T.

No. COA08-588.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Haywood (04JT106).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Elmer Ray CANNON, Jr.

No. 225P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Elmer Ray Cannon, Jr., Pro Se.

Charles E. Reece, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
# CE2004065EN.01006901.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/69

---

(2004/C 65 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Terni

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---