alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE, 

Debtor.

______________________________ 

WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

MARK BLISS; et al., 

Appellees.

No. 16-60092 

BAP No. 16-1002 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kurtz, Kirscher, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtor William Robert Norrie appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s December 

 

* 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

JUL 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-60092 

18, 2015 order denying Norrie’s motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b), and the BAP’s order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same 

standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian 

v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We 

review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision regarding 

recosideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Norrie’s 

December 16, 2015 motion because Norrie failed to demonstrate any basis for 

relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60 applicable to bankruptcy 

cases); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 

60(b)).

The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Norrie’s November 8, 2016 

motion for reconsideration because Norrie failed to demonstrate any basis for 

relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2) (motion must state with particularity each 

point of law or fact that the movant believes the BAP has overlooked or 

misapprehended).

We reject as unsupported by the record Norrie’s contention that the 
3 16-60092 

bankruptcy court failed to state its reason for denying Norrie’s Rule 60 motion.

Norrie’s motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 36) is granted. 

The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 37.

All other pending motions and requests, including appellees’ request for 

judicial notice contained within Docket Entry No. 6, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Department,

April, 1970

(April 2, 1970)*

#### In the Matter of the State Division of Human Rights, Petitioner, v. Kerpoe, Testa & O’Donnell, Inc., et al., Respondents.

*

 Not published with other decisions of April 2, 1970, 34 A D 2d 723. [Rep.

Application denied, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to renew upon proof of noncompliance with the order of the Commissioner and other facts showing the necessity for the enforcement of said order. (Executive Law, § 297 subd. 7; § 298, and see *Matter of State Division of Human Rights,*v. *Employers-Commercial Union Ins. Group,*33 A D 2d 273.)
§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. ( a ) *Scope.* This section provides the test procedures for measuring, pursuant to EPCA, the energy consumption or energy efficiency for a given equipment category of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.
( b ) *Testing and calculations.* ( 1 ) Determine the daily energy consumption and volume or total display area of each covered commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by conducting the appropriate test procedure set forth below in appendix B, to this subpart. The daily energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment shall be calculated using raw measured values and the final test results shall be reported in increments of 0.01 kWh/day.
( 2 ) Determine the daily energy consumption and pan storage volume, pan display area, and refrigerated volume of each buffet table or preparation table by conducting the appropriate test procedure set forth below in appendix C to this subpart. The daily energy consumption shall be calculated using raw measured values and the final test results shall be recorded in increments of 0.01 kWh/day.
( 3 ) Determine the energy consumption per weight of product and product capacity of each blast chiller and blast freezer by conducting the appropriate test procedure set forth below in appendix D to this subpart. The energy consumption per weight of product shall be calculated using raw measured values and the final test results shall be recorded in increments of 0.01 kWh/lb.
[88 FR 66225, Sept. 26, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                         2532062                 2532062
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7605758                 7605758
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (454000)                (454000)
<INVENTORY>                                    8957330                 8957330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              18942888                18942888
<PP&E>                                        10971396                10971396
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4668662                 4668662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25355615                25355615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5958511                 5958511
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        334046                  334046
<OTHER-SE>                                    15479008                15479008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25355615                25355615
<SALES>                                        7290056                14014480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7290056                14014480
<CGS>                                          3727537                 6821535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8005432                15109068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 27000                   54000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               79877                  158251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (946570)               (1366394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (946570)               (1366394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (946570)               (1366394)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)                   (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)                   (.16)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 436.1 Scope.

This part sets forth the rules for Federal energy management and planning programs to reduce Federal energy consumption and to promote life cycle cost effective investments in building energy systems, building water systems and energy and water conservation measures for Federal buildings.

[61 FR 32649, June 25, 1996]
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 12, 2009

Decided August 12, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 1189

MARY JANE MURRAY,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 08

‐ C

‐ 1072

Rudolph T. Randa,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

Mary Jane Murray appeals from the dismissal of her civil

‐ rights complaint on the

ground that it fails to state a claim. We affirm the judgment.

The guardianship of Murray’s developmentally disabled daughter, Mary Kate

Murray (“Mary Kate”), is at the center of this lawsuit and many other suits that Murray has

filed over the years in state and federal court. Mary Kate has had several different

guardians since 1984, including Murray’s sister and two of Murray’s former coworkers.

Most recently, in 1999, when Mary Kate was 38 years old, a Wisconsin state court appointed

ARC of Greater Milwaukee, Inc., an organization serving the disabled, to serve as Mary

Kate’s guardian. In her present complaint, Murray claims that Milwaukee County, Mary

Kate’s former guardians, and ARC violated her and her daughter’s constitutional rights.

Murray moved to proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but the district court NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 1189 Page 2

concluded that the complaint fails to state a claim and dismissed the suit, see id. § 1915(e)(2).

On appeal Murray argues that the district court’s dismissal was in error and repeats many

of the allegations from her complaint.

As a threshold matter we note that Murray is not authorized to bring a civil

‐ rights

suit on behalf of Mary Kate. Only ARC, Mary Kate’s legally appointed guardian, may bring

suit on her behalf, and ARC may do so only with the assistance of counsel. See Struck v.

Cook County Pub. Guardian

, 508 F.3d 858, 859 (7th Cir. 2007); Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934,

937 (7th Cir. 2007); Navin v. Park Ridge Sch. Dist.

, 270 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 2001)

. Murray’s claims made on behalf of her daughter, therefore, were not properly before the

district court. Murray’s own claim, moreover, is limited to the contention that she would be

the best guardian for Mary Kate and yet the defendants have prevented her from serving in

that capacity. But the selection of an appropriate guardian raises no federal constitutional

issue; any concern Murray has about Mary Kate’s guardianship must be addressed to the

state court where the guardianship determination was made. See Struck

, 508 F.3d at 859.

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 31985D0211 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31985D0211

**85/211/EEC: Council Decision of 26 March 1985 concerning the conclusion of an exchange of letters extending the arrangement relating to clause 2 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat **

*
Official Journal L 096 , 03/04/1985 P. 0030 - 0030 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0209 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 34 P. 0099 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0209 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 34 P. 0099 *

*****

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 March 1985

concerning the conclusion of an exchange of letters extending the arrangement relating to clause 2 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat

(85/211/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas, in the voluntary restraint Agreement concluded with the Community in the sector of sheepmeat and goatmeat and of live sheep and goats, Romania undertook, by an exchange of letters, to limit its exports to certain Community markets regarded as sensitive areas; whereas, however, this undertaking did not extend beyond 31 March 1984;

Whereas the conditions which led to the designation of the said areas have not changed and the arrangement regarding the restriction of exports to these areas ought therefore to be extended;

Whereas the Commission has conducted negotiations to this end with Romania and these negotiations have resulted in agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The exchange of letters extending the arrangements relating to clause 2 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the exchange of letters is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the exchange of letters referred to in Article 1 in order to bind the Community.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 1985.

For the Council

The President

F. M. PANDOLFI
#### § 429.8 Subpoena.

For purposes of carrying out parts 429, 430, and 431, the General Counsel (or delegee), may sign and issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant books, records, papers, and other documents, and administer oaths. Witnesses summoned under the provisions of this section shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena served, upon any persons subject to parts 429, 430, or 431, the General Counsel (or delegee) may seek an order from the District Court of the United States for any District in which such person is found or resides or transacts business requiring such person to appear and give testimony, or to appear and produce documents. Failure to obey such order is punishable by such court as contempt thereof.
#### Lothridge *v.*Varnadore.

June 13, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Conyers. Appling superior court. March 21, 1912.

*W.*IF. *Bennett,*for plaintiff in error.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The charge in this case was not well arranged, and was in some respects subject to criticism; but when considered as a whole, in the light of the evidence, it does not furnish ground for a new trial.

2. Although at one time in delivering his charge the presiding judge used the word “plaintiff” instead of the word “defendant,” yet this will not necessitate a new trial where the context plainly shows that it was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as was not calculated to mislead the jury. *Southern Railway Co.*v. *Merritt,*120 *Ga.*409 (47 S. E. 908).

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# L_2023240EN.01004701.xml

| 28.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/47

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 198/2020

of 11 December 2020

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/2000]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/42 of 17 January 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance bambermycin as regards its maximum residue limit (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/42 of 17 January 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance bambermycin as regards its maximum residue limit (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/43 of 17 January 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance ciclesonide as regards its maximum residue limit (2) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/43 of 17 January 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance ciclesonide as regards its maximum residue limit (2) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indents are added in point 13 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32020 R 0042: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/42 of 17 January 2020 (OJ L 15, 20.1.2020, p. 2), |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32020 R 0042: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/42 of 17 January 2020 (OJ L 15, 20.1.2020, p. 2),

| — | 32020 R 0043: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/43 of 17 January 2020 (OJ L 15, 20.1.2020, p. 5).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32020 R 0043: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/43 of 17 January 2020 (OJ L 15, 20.1.2020, p. 5).’

Article 2

The texts of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/42 and (EU) 2020/43 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 December 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 15, 20.1.2020, p. 2.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 15, 20.1.2020, p. 5.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
June 9, 2015 

Greg Murtha 

XplorIt Multimedia Technologies 

924 Incline Way 

Incline Village, NV 89451 

Dear Mr. Murtha: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 21, 91.203, 45.23, 45.29, 91.9, 61.113, 61.133, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, Subpart E (91.401 

– 91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 15, 2015, exemption request on behalf of XplorIt Multimedia 

Technologies into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0666), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROGER STROMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00086-CMC-1; 3:16-cv-02008-CMC)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Stroman, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE 

UNTIED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Stroman seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Stroman 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 and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED