alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.C., the mother

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 4570

[ April 6, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Kathleen Kroll , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014DP300378 JL

.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel,

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Meredith K. Hall, Bradenton, for appellee Department of Children and

Families.

Gale Forman Collins, Sanford, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See S.M. v. Dep’t of Child ren and Families , 40 Fla. L. Weekly

D2592 (Fla. 4 th DCA Nov. 18, 2015).

W ARNER

, M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jhimaal McKeith LASCO, Defendant.

No. COA15-1172.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, October 14, 2005.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-18335  Filed 9-12-05; 11:52 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

                                                               EXHIBIT 14.(a).2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the inclusion by reference of our report relating to our
examination of the financial statements of AlbaHealth LLC covering the balance
sheets as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the related statements of income,
members' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004,
in the annual report of TEFRON LTD. (parent company) on Form 20-F, which is to
be filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and to the incorporation
by reference of such report into the Registration Statement on Form F-3
(Registration No. 333-128847) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
333-139021 and 333-111932) of TEFRON LTD.

                                                 /s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

                                                 Charlotte, North Carolina
                                                 March 21, 2008
```
William E. MEYER, and Wife, Catherine E. Meyer, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; Grady I. Ingle or Elizabeth B. Ells in their Capacities as Trustees; Colfin Ah-North Carolina 2, LLC, Defendants.

No. COA15-1046.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
# C_2008051EN.01002402.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs BV

(Case C-526/06) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code and implementing regulation - Community transit - Offence - Proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place of the offence - Failure to grant a period of three months in which to furnish such proof - Repayment of customs duties - Concept of ‘legally owed’)

(2008/C 51/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Respondent: Road Air Logistics Customs BV

Respondent:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Reimbursement or remission of customs duties — Amount not legally owed — Determination of the place in which the customs debt was incurred

Operative part of the judgment

Article 236(1), first subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted to mean that the failure of the national customs authorities to determine, in accordance with Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, the place where the customs debt was incurred does not have the effect of rendering the amount of customs duties not legally owed.

Nevertheless, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs can proceed to recovery of import duties only if, pursuant to Article 379(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, it has first informed the principal that it has a period of three months in which to furnish proof of the place where the infringement or the irregularity was actually committed and such proof has not been provided within that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01026601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/266 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/266

---

(2004/C 78 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Possibility of funding for the health authority of Fiumicino — Rome XIII

Subject:

The area including the municipality of Fiumicino and Rome's municipal district XIII is an area at risk for two different kinds of reasons, firstly because of its environmental characteristics, and secondly because it is the location of places which could easily become terrorist targets.

It includes an area below sea level at risk of flooding, the largest pine forest in Europe, which was already severely damaged by a devastating fire in the summer of 2001, a coastline visited by almost one million tourists in summer; Leonardo da Vinci international airport; the military air base of Pratica di Mare; the summer residence of the President of the Republic and the Finance Police training college.

For all these reasons ASL RM D, the health authority responsible for the area, may devise measures to protect the population against natural hazards and possible terrorist acts, in order to prevent or effectively tackle potentially dangerous situations.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether there is any funding, under either the Structural Funds or other Community programmes, that the European Union might provide for these kinds of projects; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether there is any funding, under either the Structural Funds or other Community programmes, that the European Union might provide for these kinds of projects;

| 2. | whether the health authority, as an entity in which the Lazio Region has a majority holding, is eligible for such forms of funding or at least some of them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the health authority, as an entity in which the Lazio Region has a majority holding, is eligible for such forms of funding or at least some of them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

(23 December 2003)

Assistance from this Fund can be granted only in socio-economic conversion areas determined on the basis of the criteria in Article4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). As a result of the Italian authorities' proposals, the areas to which the Honourable Member refers are not covered by this programme for the 2000-06 period and cannot therefore be part-financed from the European Regional Development Fund.

1

Natural-hazard prevention measures of the kind to which the Honourable Member refers are eligible under the European Regional Development Fund.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          42,983
<SECURITIES>                                   375,823
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,512,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,122,968
<PP&E>                                      12,774,798
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,083,278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,655,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,357,966
<BONDS>                                     12,242,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                    (41,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,655,923
<SALES>                                      2,545,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,545,830
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,175,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009032EN.01004901.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Schell v Commission

(Case F-83/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Priority points - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

(2009/C 32/95)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment, primarily, of the lists of officials promoted in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as those lists do not contain the applicant's name and, in the alternative, of the allocation of promotion points in those years in so far as the applicant is concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 18.

1

---
Re:
    
    Amended and Restated Credit Agreement between LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.(Borrower) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (Lender), dated as of
March 1, 2009, as amended (Credit Agreement)
     Very truly yours,
WELLS FARGO BANK, 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION/s/ James R. BednarkJames R. BednarkSenior Vice President




---



##### 



DANNER INC./s/ Joseph P. SchneiderJoseph P. SchneiderPresident /Chief Executive Officer/s/ David CarlsonDavid CarlsonExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
And Secretary
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, John B. Furman, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:
       a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
       b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
       c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s independent registeredpublic accounting firm and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
       a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and
       b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls.
     Date: February 14, 2005         /s/     John B. Furman   John B. Furman   Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-5103

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY DEAN LESTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District

Judge. (1:06-cr-00067-jpj-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell,

Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.

John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst,

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Dean Lester pled guilty to possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon after having been subject to a protective

court order, and was sentenced to 180 months in prison, the

statutory mandatory minimum term pursuant to the Armed Career

Criminal Act. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g), 924(e)(1) (West 2000 &

Supp. 2008). On appeal, his attorney has filed an Anders*

 brief,

concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but

asserting that Lester’s classification as an armed career criminal

was unconstitutional because Lester’s predicate convictions were

not charged in the indictment. Although informed of his right to

do so, Lester has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a

thorough review of the entire record, we affirm. 

As counsel notes, Lester’s argument is barred by controlling

circuit precedent. We have repeatedly found that the indictment

need not reference or list prior convictions used as a basis for an

armed career criminal sentence. See, e.g., United States v.

Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm Lester’s conviction and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his
3

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Stephanie Jean HOLANEK.

No. 310P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of September 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 5th of November 2015."
Order entered September 9, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00912-CV

IN RE ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-04652

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s August 2, 2019 petition for 

writ of mandamus.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
* 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. 07-60471

Summary Calendar

THOMAS OGHENOVO IWO 

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76 837 959

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Oghenovo Iwo, a citizen and native of England, submitted a

petition for review from the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his

motion to terminate proceedings. 

Iwo argues that the BIA erred by relying on the decision in Qureshi v.

Gonzales, 442 F.3d 985, 990 (7th Cir. 2006),to find that he waived any challenge

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60471

2

to the IJ’s jurisdiction by conceding removability and failing to object to the

NTA. This court recently cited Qureshi in adopting the same rule. Chambers

v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 449-50 (5th Cir. 2008). By conceding removability and

failing to object to the NTA, Iwo waived any challenge to the IJ’s jurisdiction in

removal proceedings. See Chambers, 520 F.3d at 449-50. Iwo’s argument is

without merit. 

Iwo also contends that the BIA erred by finding his notice to appear (NTA)

was not defective. He argues that the NTA was fatally defective because it was

not signed by the proper authority. The NTA was consistent with 8 C.F.R.

§ 239.1(a), which governs who may issue a NTA. See Ali v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d

544, 546-47 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Iwo also argues that the IJ and BIA failed to provide adequate reasoned

explanations for the decisions, that he should be entitled to equitable tolling,

and that the Government deliberately deceived the court. Because Iwo failed to

raise these issues before the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.

See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, Iwo’s petition for review is DENIED.