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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11048

J. LEE MILLIGAN, INC. 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CIC FRONTIER, INC.

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CV-00207

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On August 19, 2008, this Court affirmed the final judgment of the District

Court except for a limited remand on the amount of appellate attorneys’ fees.

The parties have reached an agreement on the amount and all fees have been

paid. This court now enters judgment based on the August 19th, 2008 opinion

and grants the motion to dismiss.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 9, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
7th Level, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-10335, 333-10339 and 333-10341) on Form S-8 of 7th Level, Inc. of our report
dated January 30, 1998, related to the consolidated balance sheets of 7th Level,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and
related schedule for each of the years in the three year period ended December
31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of 7th Level, Inc.

Our report dated January 30, 1998 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses since inception and does not
currently have sufficient resources to meet its anticipated operating
requirements during 1998, which conditions raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern.  The consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.
 

                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 14, 1998
# C_2012355EN.01001802.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Heijmans v Commission

(Case T-360/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

2012/C 355/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heijmans NV (Rosmalen, Netherlands) (represented: initially by M. Smeets and A. Van den Oord, and subsequently by M. Smeets, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, assisted initially by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Heijmans NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Heijmans NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. April James BIZZELL, Defendant.

No. COA15-163.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
In re: N.G.F., A.L.F.

No. COA16-297

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2012118EN.01002102.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission

(Case T-53/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Undertaking playing a passive role - Proportionality)

2012/C 118/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: UPM-Kymmene Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented initially by: B. Amory, E. Friedel and F. Bimont, subsequently by B. Amory, E. Friedel, F. Bimont and F. Amato, and finally by B. Amory, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds UPM-Kymmene Oyj liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, in respect of the period prior to 10 October 1995; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds UPM-Kymmene Oyj liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, in respect of the period prior to 10 October 1995;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(j) of that decision at EUR 50.7 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(j) of that decision at EUR 50.7 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission and UPM-Kymmene each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission and UPM-Kymmene each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10897

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO OCAMPO-CASTANEDA,

also known as Roberto Garcia,

also known as Emilio Calderon,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CR-48-1-P 

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

June 19, 2002

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

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Ocampo-Castaneda appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Ocampo-Castaneda contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

that should have been alleged in his indictment. Ocampo-
No. 01-10897 

-2-

Castaneda maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which

charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues

that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ocampo-Castaneda acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY

AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3668 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3668

  To amend the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 to 
make permanent the exemption of grandfathered long-term care hospitals 
       from the Medicare 25 percent threshold payment adjustment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2013

  Mr. Kildee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 to 
make permanent the exemption of grandfathered long-term care hospitals 
       from the Medicare 25 percent threshold payment adjustment.

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

SECTION 1. MAKING PERMANENT THE EXEMPTION OF GRANDFATHERED LONG-TERM 
              CARE HOSPITALS FROM THE MEDICARE 25 PERCENT PATIENT 
              THRESHOLD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 114(c)(1) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension 
Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by section 3106 of 
Public Law 111-148, is further amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
        ``for a 5-year period''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``for a 5-year 
        period,'' before ``section 412.536''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of withdrawal of EIS. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it is withdrawing its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider a proposed taxiway to runway conversion and a new air carrier runway at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, New Orleans, Louisiana.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joyce M. Porter, Environmental Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Regional Office, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0640. Telephone (817) 222-5640.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA, after coordinating with the New Orleans Aviation Board, is withdrawing its notice of intent to prepare an EIS for a proposed taxiway to runway conversion and a new air carrier runway and its associated taxiways. The publication of this notice formally terminates the FAA's EIS study for Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Issued on: August 11, 2005. 

Kelvin A. Solco,

Manager, Airports Division.

[FR Doc. 05-18272  Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23-1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-83621, 333-83601, 333-76377, 333-51103, 333-52633, 333-62421, 33-56313,
33-55337, 333-12399, 33-53089-01, 2-86142-01, 33-31190-01 and 333-12401) of CKE
Restaurants, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated April 4, 2000, except as
to the eighth paragraph of Note 9 which is as of April 26, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
January 31, 2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 31, 2000, which report appears in the January 31, 2000
Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

KPMG LLP

Orange County, California
April 28, 2000
STATE v. Bernard George LAMP, Jr.

No. 222A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 16, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah M. Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

G. Glenn Gerding, Durham, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of December 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of December 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 19th day of February 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the  period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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 Partnership.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2009



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2009
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. *

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-2061

ROBIN RAPOSA,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

LYNN BISSONETTE, SUPERINTENDENT,

Respondent, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Selya and Dyk,*

Circuit Judges.

Donald A. Harwood for petitioner.

Scott A. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau,

with whom Martha Coakley, Attorney General, was on brief for

respondent.

September 4, 2008
Per Curiam. Petitioner Robin Raposa appeals from the

district court's judgment denying her petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

Raposa's petition challenged her Massachusetts state

court conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit

murder in connection with the death of her husband, Robert Raposa.

Although the district court denied relief, it granted a certificate

of appealability on several of Raposa claims of asserted error:

specifically, that the prosecutor's summation violated Raposa's due

process rights, as did aspects of the prosecutor's crossexamination and the state court's subsequent admission of allegedly

prejudicial evidence.

The Commonwealth, in turn, argues that Raposa failed to

exhaust her federal constitutional claims in the Massachusetts

Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"). In the alternative, the

Commonwealth argues that the SJC's decision was neither contrary

to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal

law.

The district court found that Raposa had exhausted her

federal claims below, but that there was no error in the SJC's

decision warranting a grant of the writ. We have given Raposa's

arguments careful consideration but in the end see no reason to

differ with, or add to, either part of the district court's

thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion.

Affirmed.
exv10w62







Exhibit
10.62 




AMENDMENT 2008-1




TO THE



GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.



2006 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN



     WHEREAS, GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors the GAIN Capital
Holdings, Inc. 2006 Equity Compensation Plan (Amended and Restated, effective December 31, 2006)
(the “Plan”) for the benefit of certain of its and its subsidiaries’ employees, advisors,
consultants and directors;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) desires to amend the Plan to
increase the total number of shares of common stock of the Company that may be issued or
transferred under the Plan by 250,000 shares, so that a total of 4,250,000 shares may be issued or
transferred under the Plan and desires to make certain other changes to update and clarify the
Plan; and



     WHEREAS, Section 16(a) of the Plan provides that the Board may amend the Plan at any time.



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 11, 2008, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:




	 	1.	 	The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced
with the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“(a) Shares Authorized. Subject to adjustment as described
below, the aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company
(“Company Stock”) that may be issued or transferred under the Plan is
4,250,000 shares.”
	 
	 	2.	 	In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of Amendment 2008-1 to the Plan as set
forth herein, the Board has caused this Amendment 2008-1 to be executed by the undersigned officer
of the Company this 11 day of January 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Glenn Stevens	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
**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 Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. 
(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      and William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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/
                Louis L. Knickerbocker
            
            
            /s/
                William C. HitchcockLouis
                L. Knickerbocker
            
            William
                C. HitchcockChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial OfficerFebruary
                21, 2006
            
            February
                21, 2006