alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10857

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gary E. Larock, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 6:13-CR-44

Before Smith, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Several years ago, Gary Larock, Jr., failed to register as a sex offender. 

That is a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). After getting caught, Larock 

pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced him to just over three years’imprisonment and fifteen years’ supervised release.

Since then, Larock has been in and out of prison for violating release 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 10, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10857 Document: 00516427365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
No. 21-10857

2

conditions. When he violated his release conditions for the third time, the 

probation office told the district court. Larock admitted to his violations, and 

the district court again revoked his supervised release, imposing ten months’ 

imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release.

Larock then filed this appeal. His counsel believes it frivolous and has 

moved to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s 

Anders brief is “facially adequate”: It identifies “possibly important issues”

that Larock might appeal, and it “furnish[es] th[is] court with references to 

the record and legal authorities to aid” our review. United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229, 232 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). 

That means our task here is narrow. We look only to the parts of the 

record “that relate to the issues discussed in [counsel’s] brief.” Id. at 233 

(quotation omitted). If that search, plus the district court’s decision, reveals 

no nonfrivolous appellate issue, we permit counsel’s withdrawal and dismiss 

the appeal. Ibid.

Counsel found no error in the revocation proceedings or the sentence. 

After reviewing the relevant parts of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree. 

We see no nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

We GRANT counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and DISMISS

Larock’s appeal. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-10857 Document: 00516427365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
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, 2008, 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 8, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 8, 2008
# C_2009102EN.01004001.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2008 — Domínguez González v Commission

(Case F-88/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Technical assistant - Plea of lack of jurisdiction - Plea of inadmissibility - Lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal)

2009/C 102/59

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Juan Luís Domínguez González (Gerona, Spain) (represented by: R. Nicolazzi Angelats initially, then by R. Nicolazzi Angelats and M.-C. Oller Gil, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the termination of his employment contract with ECHO following the result of the medical check up.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as regards the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as regards the action.

| 2. | The parties are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 34

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐57/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/86/EC – Right to family reunification – Non-transposition within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (see para. 10)*

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
# C_2007069EN.01003101.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

(Case F-9/07)

(2007/C 69/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with effect from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with effect from 1 May 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the European Parliament and successful candidate in a competition for change of category (from Category C to Category B) before the reformed Staff Regulations entered into force on 1 May 2004, has already brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities against the decision to reclassify her in Grade B*5 (1).

1

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Parliament's decision of 20 March 2006 to reclassify her in Grade B*6, step 8. In support of her claim, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are very similar to those put forward in Case T-47/05. Moreover, she submits that, despite her new classification, the system arising from the reform of the Staff Regulations calls into question the effectiveness of her change of category from C to B, since the new classification does not confer any benefit on the applicant when her situation is compared with that of her colleagues who have not been successful in a competition for change of category.

---

(1)  Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament,
  OJ C 93, 14.4.2005, p. 36.

1

Angé Serrano and Others

Parliament,

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 388 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 388

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 300 West Second 
Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Morris Sheppard Arnold United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

Mr. Griffin of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. Womack, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. 
   Cotton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 300 West Second 
Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Morris Sheppard Arnold United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 300 West Second Street in 
Little Rock, Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the ``Morris 
Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Morris Sheppard 
Arnold United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2010011EN.01002402.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (100 and 300)

(Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Applications for Community figurative marks 100 and 300 - Statement as to the scope of protection - Article 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character)

2010/C 11/46

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and K. Zajfert, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the figurative marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
Triando M. Stroud v. Pate Dawson, Inc.

No. 245P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Triando Stroud, for Stroud, Triando.

Pate Dawson, for Pate Dawson, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of June 2016 by Petitioner 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 18th of August 2016."
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4002 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe 

of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other 

purposes. 

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


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4002 RFS

1 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORA2 TION. 

3 The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to sur4 render the charter of incorporation issued to that tribe 

5 and ratified by its members on June 1, 1940, pursuant 

6 to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et seq.; com7 monly known as the ‘‘Oklahoma Welfare Act’’), is hereby 

8 accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby re9 voked. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cliff T. Davis, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Company.



/@/ Cliff T. Davis

Cliff T. Davis

Chief Financial Officer



March 22, 2007
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Lawrence, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0619 

Issued: August 4, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel B. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ERRATUM 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

The Board issued a decision and order in the above-entitled case on July 17, 2015 

affirming a January 8, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. On 

page seven, the analysis portion of the decision and order reads as: “The Board notes that 

there is no indication that OWCP properly found that it was necessary in this claim for the 

treating physician to identify and discuss all the medical history related to appellant’s hip 

condition. OWCP misinterpreted or misapplied the appropriate standard of causal 

relationship.” It should read: The Board notes that there is no indication that OWCP 

misinterpreted or misapplied the appropriate standard of causal relationship. OWCP properly 

found that it was necessary in this claim for the treating physician to identify and discuss all of 

the medical history related to appellant’s hip condition. 

 
2

 The Board will reissue the decision and order to reflect the above-noted change. 

Issued: August 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000039 05-FEB-2014 09:27 AM
State of North Carolina v. Joshua Pinkney Joseph Mears

No. COA16-286

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Richard Darnell JAMES.

No. 281A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2016.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

William D. Spence, Kinston, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *State v. Williams,* --- N.C. ----, 781 S.E.2d 268 (2016), the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
In the MATTER OF: A.S., S.S., B.S., and L.S.

No. COA16-664

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
# C_2019399EN.01003801.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T-129/07 and T-130/07) (1)

(State aid - Directive 2003/96/EC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise duty - Selective nature of the measure - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001)

(2019/C 399/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-129/07: Ireland (represented, initially, by D. O’Hagan and E. Alkin, subsequently, by E. Alkin, E. Creedon and A. Joyce, and, finally, by E. Alkin, A. Joyce, M. Browne and G. Hodge, acting as Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Applicant in Case T-130/07: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented, initially, by J. Handoll and C. Waterson, and, subsequently, by C. Waterson and C. Little, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, initially, by V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte and K. Walkerová, and, subsequently, by N. Khan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)) (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 29), in so far as it finds that State aid was granted by Ireland, from 1 January 2004, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region (Ireland), and in so far as it orders Ireland to recover the aid or to cancel or suspend its payment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs in Case T-129/07; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs in Case T-129/07;

| 3. | Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to pay the costs in Case T-130/07. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to pay the costs in Case T-130/07.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,446
<SECURITIES>                                       978
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          38,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,785<F1>
<BONDS>                                            529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,607
<SALES>                                          7,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,799
<CGS>                                            4,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (461)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,962
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
<FN>
<F1>The Company utilizes an unclassified balance sheet presentation.  This format
was followed based on the premise that the videocassette rental inventory
represents assets used by the Company to generate current operating income, and
management believes that to classify all of these costs as noncurrent would be
misleading to the readers of the financial statements because it would not
indicate the level of assets expected to be converted into cash in the next
year as a result of the rentals of the videocassettes.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>