alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7305
LUCIUS DRAFTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY D. MAYNARD; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-120-22BD) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lucius Drafts, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lucious Drafts, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Drafts has not made the requisite showing. See Drafts v. Maynard, No. CA-02-120-22BD (D.S.C. filed Aug. 6, 2002 & entered Aug. 7, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016222EN.01001401.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Post Bank Iran v Council

(Case T-68/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of illegality - Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 - Article 215 TFEU - Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Decision 2012/35/CFSP - Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 - Fundamental rights - Articles 2 TEU, 21 TEU and 23 TEU - Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))

(2016/C 222/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Rodios and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application firstly for annulment, under Article 263 TFEU and Article 275 TFEU of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant, and secondly for a declaration, under Article 277 TFEU, of the inapplicability as regards the applicant of Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413, concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22) and of Article 23(2)(d) and Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Post Bank Iran to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Post Bank Iran to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

---
# C_2016326EN.01003402.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/34

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Dominguez Perez v Commission

(Case F-56/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal for the crediting of pensionable years, accepted by the person concerned, based on the new general implementing provisions - Act not having an adverse effect - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 326/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dolores Dominguez Perez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent and, lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of two calculation proposals relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme which apply the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Ms Dolores Dominguez Perez shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Dolores Dominguez Perez shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4/8/2014, p. 70.

1

---
# C_2015155EN.01003804.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Styron Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-271/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 155/48)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,335
<SECURITIES>                                       499
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     88,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,583
<PP&E>                                         114,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,646)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 273,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                     342,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   273,252
<SALES>                                         20,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,024
<CGS>                                           12,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (244)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,543)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015007EN.01001201.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/12

---

Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Eleonora Giulia Calvi against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-159/14 Eleonora Giulia Calvi v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-171/14 P)

(2015/C 007/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Eleonora Giulia Calvi (represented by: M. Schirò and G. Crespi, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 9 October 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.

---
# C_2014235EN.01000801.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) lodged on 7 May 2014 — Konstantinos Maistrellis v Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

(Case C-222/14)

2014/C 235/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konstantinos Maistrellis

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 96/34/EC (1) and Directive 2006/54/EC (2), in so far as they are applicable, be interpreted as precluding national regulations, such as the contested provision of the third sentence of Article 53(3) of Law 3528/2007, providing that if the civil servant’s wife does not work or exercise any profession the male spouse is not entitled to parental leave, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4).

1

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

2

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEON-MICHAEL THOLSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KEVIN L. DILLON; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36036 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00243-RRB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alaska state prisoner Leon-Michael Tholson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and 

deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) 

 

* 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

AUG 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-36036 

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 

(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We vacate and 

remand.

Although the district court properly concluded that Tholson failed to state 

deliberate indifference and retaliation claims, the district court abused its discretion 

in dismissing Tholson’s action without leave to amend because it is not absolutely 

clear that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Lucas v. Dep’t of 

Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no 

amendment can cure the defect, . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 

complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the 

action.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth 

standard of review). We vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to 

provide Tholson with an opportunity to amend.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider the district court’s order 

denying Tholson’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors


Vixel Corporation



     We consent to the use in this Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-1 of our report included herein dated May 1, 1997 relating to the
balance sheet of Arcxel Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and the
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
period from June 18, 1996 (inception) to December 31, 1996, and to the reference
to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.



/s/ KPMG LLP


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


KPMG LLP


Orange County, California


August 12, 1999
O

N Q' O

U N

_ 

### (D O C 

## O ` N (II

O p] OOO ~ CO V O4) U ~ N "' Nco (p t " C O C N p (n O ~ 

### N a CO O0 0 ~- 0 u C.)

~ O

~ ( rJ N_ a N 

# 00 N



# Of -a 00 O cD 

# cu C 

# 0 a) U N

_

. m O 0 0e- N Z ~ U "

d

. O U CO C/)

_ ~O _

O U N N (9 C
. 

### N 7 'O (O ~ d U 0

. C O U 

# x N 

# 'U) Q U O N . U N = ~j >, [p O0 0r CiN - 

## U

. O 

## Qr v C



## . > w c C`~ W 

# cc U d O C ~ 

# co

N O N 'o ~ ~ O O O c0 n~ ~, .2 O(n (D 

## ~t o) o 75

c c_ y 2 ~ U ~ (0 m OO Or- '~P a 

# E ~ O
' 

# ~ n O 

# 0 U Q

. N Q II ~ '
~ p7 U c0 Q LL J p~ y

N (D a 4) lO

N 

## c~o °- ~ E `~ ~ 'm m Con 

## 0°= ~o -- ~-

# c>

0Q F= V 

# ~- E F- w o 0

fC N

rn +_r C J p> 7 7
d Q 

# Q al N X O O p7 N 7 N _yl O 7 N N (0 O N O O Y 

### 3 U

O O O) N !Z

m 

## 0 n

o co
m U N N O C O Z I I 0 Z O C N V
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7746 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve firearm destruction 

practices, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2024 

Mr. FROST (for himself, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. TOKUDA, Mr. AMO, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. 

ESCOBAR, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. IVEY, Mr. LIEU, Mr. SOTO, Ms. CROCKETT, 

Ms. NORTON, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. CASTEN, Mrs. RAMIREZ, Mr. 

DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California, Ms. PINGREE, Mrs. 

MCBATH, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mr. MCGARVEY, Mr. RYAN, Mrs. WATSON

COLEMAN, and Ms. KELLY of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve firearm 

destruction practices, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Destroy Zombie Guns 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7746 IH

1 SEC. 2. SAFE FIREARM DESTRUCTION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United 

3 States Code is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in 

6 the business of destroying firearms, while destroying or 

7 aiding in the destruction of a firearm that has been 

8 shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, 

9 to not destroy every component of the firearm.’’. 

10 (b) DEFINITION OF ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’ 

11 AS APPLIED TO A DESTROYER OF FIREARMS.—Section 

12 921(a)(21) of such title is amended— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara14 graph (E); 

15 (2) by striking the period at the end of para16 graph (F) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

17 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(G) as applied to a destroyer of firearms, a 

19 person who devotes time, attention, and labor to the 

20 destruction of firearms or firearm components as a 

21 regular course of trade or business to predominantly 

22 earn a profit through services rendered to facilitate 

23 the destruction of a firearm or firearm compo24 nents.’’. 

25 (c) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is 

26 amended by adding at the end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7746 IH

1 ‘‘(9)(A) Any person who violates section 922(aa) shall 

2 be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 

3 2 years, or both, in addition to any penalty imposed on 

4 the person under paragraph (2) of this subsection. 

5 ‘‘(B) In addition to any penalty imposed under sub6 paragraph (A) of this paragraph on a licensee under this 

7 chapter, the Attorney General may, after notice and op8 portunity for a hearing, suspend the license issued to the 

9 licensee in the case of the first violation of section 922(aa), 

10 or, in the case of any subsequent violation, shall imme11 diately revoke the license.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Smart-tek Solutions,
Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10KT for the six month period ending December 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and
belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Brian BonarBrian Bonar Chief Financial
Officer

April 15, 2011

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 13, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10737 Summary Calendar

BOBBY RAY HAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus COLUMBIA NAVARRO REGIONAL HOSPITAL; GILBERT SIMMONS; BRAD GANNON, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CV-518

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bobby Ray Hailey moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court’s certification that his appeal was taken in bad faith. The district court dismissed Hailey’s civil rights action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Hailey does not argue that the district court erred in determining that his appeal was taken in bad faith, and he does not argue that the district court erred by dismissing his actionNo. 04-10737 -2- as barred by Heck . As Hailey has failed to brief the sole dispositive issue for appeal, his IFP motion is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7513 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from finalizing 

a proposed rule regarding minimum staffing for nursing facilities, and 

to establish an advisory panel on the skilled nursing facility workforce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2024 

Mrs. FISCHBACH (for herself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from finalizing a proposed rule regarding minimum staffing for nursing facilities, and to establish an advisory 

panel on the skilled nursing facility workforce. 

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 ‘‘Protecting America’s 

5 Seniors’ Access to Care Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7513 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FINALIZING PROPOSED STAFFING 

2 RULE. 

3 The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

4 not implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the pro5 posed rule entitled ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; 

6 Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facili7 ties and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency 

8 Reporting’’ published by the Department of Health and 

9 Human Services on September 6, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 

10 61352–61429), and may not promulgate any substantially 

11 similar rule. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS