alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John T. Dawdy v. Rebecca Wright.

1. *Surrejoinder—when overruling demurrer to, not reversible error.*The overruling of a demurrer to a surrejoinder is not reversible error where there is one good plea to the declaration.

Action of replevin. Appeal from the County Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. E. B. Hutchinson, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the November term, 1904.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 20, 1905.

R M. Peadro, for appellant.

*280Spitler & Jennings, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gest

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit is in replevin by appellee ■ against appellant. Appellant pleaded, first, property in defendant and not in plaintiff; second, *non detinet;*third, *non cepit;*fourth, the usual plea of justification by an officer under a writ of execution. Issues were made upon the first three pleas. Three replications were filed to the fourth plea. Appellant demurred to the first replication to the fourth plea and his demurrer was sustained. To the second replication to the fourth plea he made rejoinder and to this rejoinder appellee demurred and his demurrer thereto was sustained. Error is not assigned upon the action of the court sustaining this demurrer nor could error be successfully assigned upon it. To the third replication to the fourth plea appellant rejoined and appellee filed her surrejoinder, to which appellant demurred and his demurrer was overruled. Error is assigned by appellant upon the overruling of this demurrer. From the foregoing statement it will be seen that no issue upon the fourth plea was presented to the jury in the trial court and that no question arises upon it in this court. By the record presented in this court appellee’s second reply to that plea stands confessed to be good and neither traversed nor avoided. One good reply to a plea is enough. It is consequently of no importance whether appellant’s demurrer to appellee’s surrejoinder to appellants rejoinder to appellee’s third replication to the fourth plea was sustained or overruled. By the holding of the court and the acquiescence therein of appellant, both in the trial court and this court, the fourth plea is eliminated. The only issues, therefore, upon which the cause could be tried, were those made upon the pleas of *non*cejpii, *non detinet*and of property. Upon these issues appellee made satisfactory proof, appellant made none, and the verdict and judgment were for appellee. The entire argument of appellant is upon matters not before this court. We decline the discussion. The abstract furnished to us by appellant’s counsel is so wretch*281edly prepared we would have been entirely justified in' affirming the judgment for want of an abstract.

The judgment will be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
§ 291.9 What must the Secretary do at the end of the 60-day comment period if the State offers an alternative proposal for Class III gaming procedures? Within 30 days of receiving the State's alternative proposal, the Secretary must appoint a mediator who: ( a ) Has no official, financial, or personal conflict of interest with respect to the issues in controversy; and
( b ) Must convene a process to resolve differences between the two proposals.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8037** 

VONTE ’ AVON GAFFNEY , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. F. B. BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 03168

- RDB )

Submitted : May 28, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vonte’ Avon Gaffney, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vonte’ Avon Gaffney seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaffney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts an d legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3947]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12468 and <greek-i>12469]


Utah Disaster <greek-i>UT-00009

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Utah (FEMA-1955-
DR), dated 02/11/2011.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 12/20/2010 through 12/24/2010.
    Effective Date: 02/11/2011.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/12/2011.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/14/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 02/11/2011, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Kane, Washington.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
    Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere..     3.250
    Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available              3.000
     Elsewhere................................................
For Economic Injury:
    Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available              3.000
     Elsewhere................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12468B 
and for economic injury is 12469B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-3947 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### William D. Stratton, Respondent, v. Delaware and Eastern Railroad Company, Appellant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.' Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UZOMA IGBONWA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.; MARK ZUCKERBERG,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 15121

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 02027

- JCS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted November 18, 2019 * **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Uzoma Igbonwa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismiss ing

his diversity action alleging negligence, defamation, discrimination, and breach of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

** * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15121

contract . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe

v. Inter net Brands, Inc. , 824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016)

. We may affirm on any

basis supported in the record

. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir.

2008)

.

The district court properly dismissed Igbonwa’s negligence, defamation, and

discrimination claims as barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency

Act because interactive computer service providers are immune under the Act from

civil liability from claim s premised upon the provider ’ s role as “the publisher or

speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. , 570 F.3d 1096, 1100

- 01 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

Dismissal of Igbonwa’s breach of contract claim was proper because

Igbonwa fail ed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated any

provision in the Terms of Service. See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors, XXVI,

LLC

, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174 , 183 ( Ct. App. 2011) (setting forth required elements to

state a claim for breach of contract).3 19

- 15121

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief

, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 227.12 Mineral reserves in nonmineral entries.

Where lands have been leased under authority of said act of August 21, 1916 (39 Stat. 519), and nonmineral entry is subsequently lawfully made for such lands with a view to obtaining a restricted patent therefor, all such subsequently allowed nonmineral entries shall be with the mineral reservation prescribed by the act of July 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 509).
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Commander, Task Force 74 Visits Republic of Korea for 56th Submarine Warfare Committee Meeting

By Lt.Cmdr. Robert Reinheimer Commander, Submarine Group Seven

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### § 225.33 Assignment of minerals agreements.

An assignment of a minerals agreement, or any interest therein, shall not be valid without the approval of the Secretary and, if required in the minerals agreement, the Indian mineral owner. The assignee must be qualified to hold the minerals agreement and shall furnish a satisfactory bond conditioned on the faithful performance of the covenants and conditions thereof as stipulated in the minerals agreement. A fully executed copy of the assignment shall be filed with the Secretary within five (5) working days after execution by all parties. The Secretary may permit the release of any bonds executed by the assignor upon submission of satisfactory bonds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by the assignee, and a determination that the assignor has satisfied all accrued obligations.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4178]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1742]


Reorganization and Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 144 Under 
Alternative Site Framework, Brunswick, GA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (74 
FR 1170, 01/12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09; 75 FR 71069-71070, 
11/22/10) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of 
general-purpose zones;
    Whereas, the Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 144, submitted an application to the 
Board (FTZ Docket 25-2010, filed 04/01/2010) for authority to 
reorganize and expand under the ASF with a service area of Appling, 
Atkinson, Brantley, Camden, Charlton, Coffee, Glynn, Jeff Davis, 
McIntosh, Ware and Wayne Counties, Georgia, within and adjacent to the 
Brunswick Customs and Border Protection port of entry, FTZ 144's 
existing Sites 1 and 2 would be categorized as magnet sites, and the 
grantee proposes one initial usage-driven site (Site 3);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 17898-17899, 04/08/2010) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand and reorganize FTZ 144 under the 
alternative site framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, to the Board's standard 
2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone 
project, to a five-year ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that 
would terminate authority for Site 2 if not activated by February 29, 
2016, and to a three-year ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites 
that would terminate authority for Site 3 if no foreign-status 
merchandise is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose by February 28, 
2014.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of February 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-4178 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
### §2788. Property accountability: regulations

The Secretary of a military department may prescribe regulations for the accounting for the property of that department and the fixing of responsibility for that property.

(Added Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title III, §375(a), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 83.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Genetics and Cell Biology.
    Date: March 21-22, 2011.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Arthur L. Zachary, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 
Room 3AN-12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2886, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5dfc4c6cdc4d7dcc4e5cbccc2c8d68bcbcccd8bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aad0cbc9c2cbd8d3cbeac4c3cdc7d984c4c3c284cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 17, 2011.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4186 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2006178EN.01002802.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/28

---

Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-259/06)

(2006/C 178/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and W. Wils, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of those measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of those measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | An order requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

An order requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be implemented expired on 11 August 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 35, 2003, p. 1.

1

---
[Cite as State v. Day, 2021-Ohio-543.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

PREBLE COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

PRESTON TYLER DAY, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2020-06-010 

D E C I S I O N 

 3/1/2021 

APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 18CR12706 

Martin P. Votel, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, Kathryn West, 101 East Main Street, 

Courthouse, First Floor, Eaton, Ohio 45320, for appellee 

Valerie Sargent-Wood Law, LLC, Valerie Sargent-Wood, 204 North Barron Street, Suite C, 

Eaton, Ohio 45320, for appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Preston Tyler Day, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript 

of proceedings and original papers from the Preble County Court of Common Pleas, and 

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 
Preble CA2020-06-010

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous. 

PIPER, P.J., HENDRICKSON and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.