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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-30826

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONALD JOSEPH FAVORS, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:97-CR-60045-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Joseph Favors, Jr. federal prisoner # 09800-035, appeals the

district court’s denial of a motion for a downward departure or evidentiary

hearing pertaining to his 1998 sentence for drug possession with intent to

distribute. Favors based his claims on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), FED. R. CRIM. P. 35,

U.S.S.G. §§ 5K1.1 & 5K2.0, and Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992),

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30826

2

and he contended that he was entitled to a sentence reduction because he

rendered substantial assistance to the Government. 

The statutes and Guidelines cited by Favors do not apply. Some require

a government motion that is lacking in this case. See § 3553(e); Rule 35(b);

§ 5K1.1. Another does not pertain to a downward departure for substantial

assistance. See § 5K2.0. 

Wade likewise provides no legal basis for Favors’s claim. The Government

has “a power, not a duty, to file a motion when a defendant has substantially

assisted.” Wade, 504 U.S. at 185. Moreover, “a claim that a defendant merely

provided substantial assistance will not entitle a defendant to a remedy or even

to discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Nor would additional but generalized

allegations of improper motive.” Id. at 186. The district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mohammed Nadder JILANI.

No. 172P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 4, 2015.

Mohammed Nadder Jilani, for Jilani, Mohammed Nadder.

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

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of November 2015."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136417 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BAERE COMPANY, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ Justices Appellant, 

v SC: 136417 

 COA: 268238 

Kent CC: 04-012262-CH 

ADVANTAGE 99 TD,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
NO. 12-08-00070-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: RAQUEL FLORES,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator Raquel Flores has filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding. A copy has

been served on each attorney of record. In her motion, Flores, in effect, states that the issues in this

proceeding have been rendered moot. Because Flores has met the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the motion is granted, and the original proceeding is dismissed. 

Opinion delivered September 3, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
Linda M. Bennett, Executrix for Elizabeth H. Maynard, Deceased, Lisa M. Bennett, Personally on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hospice & Palliative Care Center of Alamance-Caswell, Community Home Care and Hospice, LLC, the Oaks of Alamance, LLC, Jeffrey Brown, M.D., Beth Hodges, M.D., Does 1-10, Inclusive

No. 116P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Ms. Linda M. Bennett, For Bennett, Linda M. (Executrix & Ind.), et al

Ms. Elizabeth P. McCullough, Attorney at Law, For Hodges, Beth (M.D.)

Mr. Norman F. Klick, Jr., Attorney at Law, For The Oaks of Alamance, LLC

Mr. H. Lee Davis, Jr., Ms. Ann C. Rowe, Attorneys at Law, For Hospice & Palliative Care Center Of Alamance-Caswell, et al

Mr. Barry S. Cobb, Attorney at Law, For Community Home Care And Hospice, LLC

Ms. Kelly A. Brewer, Mr. Nathan D. Childs, Attorneys at Law

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 1st of April 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of April 2016 by Plaintiff 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 9th of June 2016."
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Dime Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-88552, 33-88554, 33-88556, 33-88558, 33-88560, 33-88564, 33-88566 and 333-
04477) on Form S-8 of Dime Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 1997,
relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of Dime Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996,
which report appears in the December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dime
Bancorp, Inc.  Our report included an explanatory paragraph that described a
change in accounting method as discussed in the notes to those statements.



                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



New York, New York
March 30, 1997
STATE of North Carolina. v. Rodney Marquice COVINGTON.

No. COA15-298.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**Exhibit 32.02**
**Quintiles Transnational Corp. andSubsidiaries****Certification Pursuant To****18 U.S.C. Section 1350,****As Adopted Pursuant To****Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**
     In connection with the Annual Report of QuintilesTransnational Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, James L. Bierman, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,to my knowledge that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JAMES L. BIERMAN      James L. Bierman     Executive Vice President and     Chief Financial Officer      Date March 1, 2004    
     This certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed“filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shallnot be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Companyunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or afterthe date of this Report, irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.
     A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other documents authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010301EN.01002301.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council

(Case T-314/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea - Definition of the product concerned - Rights of the defence - Advisory Committee - Duty to state reasons - Choice of the method used to define the product concerned - Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2010/C 301/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by: M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Albenzio, lawyer), and European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and A. Verheyden, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents) and LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented initially by: L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker, and subsequently by L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 2006 L 236, p. 11)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Whirlpool Europe Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and LG Electronics, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Whirlpool Europe Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and LG Electronics, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic, the European Commission and the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic, the European Commission and the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         908,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               908,516
<PP&E>                                      18,247,888
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,149,973)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,006,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          424,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,582,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,006,431
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,434,440
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  626,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                971,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            971,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   971,373
<EPS-BASIC>                                      40.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    40.36



</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 33 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1757/03

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Possible abuse of authority

There have been fresh incidents in recent days on the periphery of Portuguese waters following the incursion of Spanish fishing vessels. The Portuguese authorities respond to these misdemeanours, which regrettably occur on a fairly regular basis, with firearms and other violent means which are totally disproportionate, particularly between two neighbouring countries which both belong to the EU.

In the light of the above, and bearing in mind Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which refers to the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, does the Commission consider the severity of the penalties to be disproportionate to the criminal offence? If so, how does the Commission believe that such abuses of authority in the EU might be curbed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The Commission has no detailed information on the incidents described by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that under Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1), the Member States must take the inspection and enforcement measures necessary to ensure compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy on their territory or in the waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction. Under Article 25 of that Regulation, the Member States must also ensure that appropriate measures are taken, including administrative action or criminal proceedings in conformity with their national law, against the natural or legal persons responsible where the rules of the common fisheries policy have not been respected. In addition, under that Article, the Member States must take immediate measures to prevent vessels or natural or legal persons found in flagrante delicto while committing a serious infringement, as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 (2), from continuing to do so.

Clearly, any penalties must be applied in compliance with the principles laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights as referred to by the Honourable Member.

Since the Commission has no detailed information on the circumstances, it is unable to answer the Honourable Member's final question.

----

(1)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 of 24 June 1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy, OJ L 167, 2.7.1999.

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
meeting:
    Name of Committee: Distance Learning/Training Technology 
Applications Subcommittee of the Army Education Advisory Committee.
    Date: October 5-6, 2005.
    Place: Crowne Plaza Williamsburg at Fort Magruder, Williamsburg, 
VA.
    Time: 0800-1630 on 5 Oct 05; 0800-1630 on 6 Oct 05.
    Proposed Agenda: The meeting agenda includes updates on The Army 
Distributed Learning Program (TADLP) and infrastructure, review of 
selected courseware, and discussions focused on learning and 
technology.
    Purpose of the Meeting: To provide for the continuous exchange of 
information and ideas for distance learning between the HQ, U.S. Army 
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Department of the Army, and the 
academic and business communities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All communications regarding this 
subcommittee should be addressed to Mr. Mike Faughnan, at Headquarters 
TRADOC, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, ATTN: ATTG-
CF (Mr. Faughnan), Fort Monroe, VA 23651-5000; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2848397858a8c838c8fa28f8d8c908d87cc83908f9bcc8f8b8e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72141307151a1c131c1f321f1d1c001d175c13001f0b5c1f1b1e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting of the advisory committee is open to 
the public. Because of restricted meeting space, attendance will be 
limited to those persons who have notified the Advisory Committee 
Management Office in writing, at least 5 days prior to the meeting, of 
their intention to attend. Contact Mr. Faughnan 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1d7d0c4d6d9dfd0dfdcf1dcdedfc3ded49fd0c3dcc89fdcd8dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e484f5b4946404f40436e4341405c414b004f5c435700434742">[email protected]</span></a>) for meeting agenda and specific locations.
    Any member of the public may file a written statement with the 
committee before, during, or after the meeting. To the extent that time 
permits, the committee chairman may allow public presentations or oral 
statements at the meeting.

Robert E. Seger,
Senior Executive Service, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Operations and Training.
[FR Doc. 05-18649 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OSE L UI S C RUZ ALVAREZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73343 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 581- 168 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rJ os e L ui s C ruz A l var e z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons for r evi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s orderdi sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o rc o n tin u an c e r e g ar d in g h is



# FI LED OC T 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

ap p l i c a t i o n f

o rc an c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l . O u rj u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he IJdi d n otabuse hi s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng A l vare z’ s m ot i on for a c ont i nuanc e be c aus e A l var e z di d notde m ons tr a t e good c aus e . 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29; se e San do val-L un a v. Mukasey , 526 F . 3d 1243, 1247 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( r e vi e w i ng f or abuse of di sc re t i on ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Gregory P. NIES and Diane S. Nies v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, a North Carolina Municipality.

No. 409PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

J. David Breemer, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Keith P. Anthony, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Wilmington, for Town of Emerald Isle.

*172Norwood P. Blanchard, III, for Town of Emerald Isle.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiffs on the 9th of December 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of December 2015 by Plaintiffs 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).