alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 78 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 78

            For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Alemseghed Mussie 
Tesfamical shall be considered to have been lawfully admitted to the 
United States for permanent residence as of the date of enactment of 
this Act upon payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alemseghed Mussie 
Tesfamical, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the alien's birth under section 202(e) or 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 – Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM – Unicre-Cartão International
De Crédito (unibanco)**

**(Case T-392/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the figurative Community mark unibanco – Prior national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO – Late production of documents – Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2))
(see paras 30-32)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 (Case R 442/2004-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark unibanco for services in Classes 36 and 38 – Application No 1871896 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | German figurative marks UniFLEXIO and UniVARIO for services in Classes 35 and 36; German figurative mark UniZERO for services in Class 36 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs. |
-1- 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

FRANCES JEAN HERNA NDEZ , )

) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Appeal No. ) M1999-00967-COA- R3-CV v. ) ) Davidson County Circuit Court PHILLIP ANDREUS HERN ANDEZ , ) No. 97D-2557

) Defendant/Appe

llant. )

APPEAL FROM THE DAVI DSON COUNTY CIRCUI T COURT AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE HONORABLE MARIETTA SHIPLEY, JUDGE Joy Marie Sims and K

athy A. Leslie, Na

shville, Tennesse

e, for Appellant

. Robert Wheeler Rutherford, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N INMAN, Senior Judge The appellant owned

an undivided one-

third interest

in a residence pr

ior to his marriage

to the appell ee. They o ccupied the residence for about two years, during which time the evidence reveals that theappellee engaged herself in constant repairs, thereby increasing the liveability and value of the residence. She was awarded 75% of the increase in the value of this residence during the marriage, of which the appellant complains.1 Affirmance With out Opinion - Memora

ndum Opinion. (b) The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the ac tions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. [As amended by order filed April 22, 1992.] -2- Appellant also complains of the award of attorney feesto the appellee, although recognizing that such an award is in the nature of alimony and thus essentially discretionary with the trial court. Our standard of revi

ew is de novo on the record, with a presumption of c orre ctness unless the evidence oth

erwise preponde

rates. Rule 13(d) , T.R.A.P. We conclude that this

is a proper

case for affirmance pursuant to Rule 10, Rules of the Court of Appeals. 1 Costs are assesse d to the appellant.

___________________________________

INMAN, Sr. J.

___________________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

___________________________________ LILLARD, J.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LUIS ALBERTO GARCIA DE JESUS,

AKA Luis Garcia De Jesus, AKA Jose Luis

Garcia Tolentino,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10383

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr

- 01446

- SMB

- 3

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Garcia De Jesus appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 36

- month sentence imposed fol lowing his guilty

- plea conviction for

conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10383

(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), De Jesus ’s

counsel has filed a brief stating that there ar e no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided De Jesus the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

De Jesus waived his right to appeal his sentence. Our independent review of

the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no

arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson , 582

F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at

988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         86243
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         13113
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 91243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4389
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2029568
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1942714)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   91243
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18780
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               145068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (126288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (126288)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (126288)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the periodic report of Westaff, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended January 22, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the UnitedStates Code, that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: March 8, 2005 |   |                                               |   |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |                                               |   |
|                     | By:    | /s/ Dirk A.  Sodestrom                             |   |
|                     |   | Dirk A.  Sodestrom                                 |   |
|                     |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Westaff, Inc.and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,979 & AP-75,980

EX PARTE FRANKLIN ELOY MADRID, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W-55127-01-C AND W-55427-01-C IN THE 251ST DISTRICT

COURT FROM POTTER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted possession

of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of a controlled substance and

sentenced to twenty-eight (28) years’ imprisonment and seven (7) years’ imprisonment, respectively.

Applicant contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to timely

file notices of appeal. 

The trial court has determined that appellate counsel failed to timely file notices of appeal.
MADRID -- 2

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time appeals of the

judgments of conviction in Cause Nos. W-55127-01-C and W-55427-01-C from the 251st Judicial

District Court of Potter County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give

written notices of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain meaningful appeals.

All time limits shall be calculated as if these sentences had been imposed on the date upon which

the mandates of this Court issue. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute appeals, he

must take affirmative steps to file written notices of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the

mandates of this Court issue.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
STATE of North Carolina v. Billy Lee WALKER.

No. COA15-922.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed; Remanded for Correction of Clerical Error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1616

In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-5)

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

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

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cleveland McLean, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking amendment to his criminal sentence. We conclude that

McLean is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief

sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th

Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only

be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818,

826 (4th Cir. 1987).

The relief sought by McLean is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136644 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136644 

 COA: 284073 

Oakland CC: 1998-159618-FH;

1998-160832-FH 

RONNIE PRATT MONCRIEF, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2008 order 

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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

p0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
TOWN OF CARY, Plaintiff, v. Sydney Duane SOUTHERLAND, Jr., and Linda L. Southerland, Defendants.

No. COA15-740.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Long v. Currituck County, et al.

274P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 28, 2016

George B. Currin, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Long, Michael P., et al.

Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, for Currituck County.

Gregory E. Wills, Attorney at Law, Point Harbor, for Letendre, Elizabeth.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of July 2016 by Respondent (Elizabeth Letendre) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of July 2016."
Exhibit
32
 
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350,
 Chapter 63 of Title
18, of
 U.S.C. as adopted
pursuant to
 Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Amendment Number 1 of Form
10-Q/A,  of Titan Technologies, Inc.(the "Company") for the period
ended October 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the
date  indicated  below,  hereby  certify  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 b)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date: August
11, 2009
 
  /s/ Ronald L.
Wilder
 Ronald L.
Wilder
 President
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3744 

To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed as a result 

of sequestration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide for the compensation of Federal employees 

furloughed as a result of sequestration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employee Pay 

5 Restoration Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FUR7 LOUGHED AS A RESULT OF SEQUESTRATION. 

8 Federal employees furloughed as a result of reduc9 tions in budget authority required pursuant to the Presi10 dential sequestration order dated March 1, 2013, shall be 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3744 IH

1 compensated at their standard rate of compensation for 

2 the period of such furlough. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# CE2004088EN.01012302.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/123

---

(2004/C 88 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Yet another case of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt

Subject:

The European Parliament has on numerous occasions forcibly condemned the persecution campaign being waged against homosexuals in Egypt, and has called on the Commission and Council to take concrete and progressive measures vis-à-vis the Egyptian institutions. On 28 August 2003, 62 men presumed to be homosexual were arrested on the Qsr el Nil bridge in Egypt in the course of a raid by Cairo police, who surrounded the bridge, verbally abused the men and arrested them. The victims were imprisoned for three days, charged with ‘depraved practices’, obliged to sign statements of guilt, and released after being forced to give their addresses. The hearings will be held in November and December 2003.

Is the Commission aware of these arrests? Does it intend to take concrete and progressive measures, in line with Parliament's repeated demands, with regard to Egypt on the subject of the severe persecution campaign which homosexuals have now been suffering from there for years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

(5 November 2003)

The Commission has carefully monitored alleged incidences of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt. It has raised its concerns with the Egyptian authorities both on the Queen Boat case itself, and on the related issue of police harassment on several occasions as requested in the Parliament's Resolution of 10 April 2003.

There have been recently some welcome developments, notably the release of twenty-nine of the defendants and the transfer of the proceedings from the security courts to the normal court system. But the Honourable Members can rest assured that our Delegation in Cairo, together with the Member State embassies, will continue to follow this case as well as the cases of the 62 men arrested on 28 August. Likewise, the Commission will continue to raise these issues with the Egyptian Authorities whenever appropriate.

The institutions of the Union-Egypt Association Agreement (still pending ratification from various Member States) will provide a useful additional forum to discuss a range of human rights issues.

In addition, as the Honourable Member knows, on 22 May 2003, the Commission issued a Communication on ‘Re-invigorating Union actions on Human Rights and démocratisation with the Mediterranean partners’, with the aim of working constructively to prompt concrete progress on human rights issues. This communication is now being considered by the Council and Parliament.

---
# C_2008183EN.01000601.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-507/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Industrial and commercial property - Community designs - Article 80(2) - Failure to communicate the list of courts)

(2008/C 183/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — Failure to communicate the list, provided for in Article 80(2) of the regulation referred to above, of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | By not communicating to the Commission of the European Communities the list of Community design courts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By not communicating to the Commission of the European Communities the list of Community design courts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs;

| 2. | The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---