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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7005

L.C. BROWN, a/k/a L.C. Brown, Jr.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN REYNOLDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:15-cv-00185-TLW)

Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 2, 2015

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L.C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

L.C. Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 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 

Brown 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
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99

                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of HUBCO, Inc.:


We have audited the accompanying  consolidated  balance sheets of HUBCO, Inc. (a
New Jersey  corporation)  and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related consolidated  statements of income,  changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the three  years in the  period  ended  December  31,
1996.  These  financial  statements  are  the  responsibility  of the  Company's
management.  Our  responsibility  is to express  an  opinion on these  financial
statements based on our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of HUBCO, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December  31, 1996 and 1995,  and the results of their  operations  and their
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended  December 31, 1996 in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Roseland, New Jersey
February 27, 1997
Docket No: FAA - 2014 - 1050 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 123 -AD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NANCY JANE GEIGER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CITY OF CHINO, a municipal entity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 56865

D.C. No. 5:14

- cv
- 02086

- UA

- AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 16, 2016 **

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Nancy Jane Geiger appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging federal claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo the district court’s conclusion that Ge iger’s action is barred by Heck v.

* 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 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 56865

Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Beets v. County of Los Angeles , 669 F.3d 1038,
1041 (9th Cir. 2012), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of

lea ve to proceed IFP , O’

Loughlin v. Doe , 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990).

We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Geiger’s action is Heck

- barred

be cause success on her claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of her
infraction conviction, and she failed to allege that her conviction had been

invalidated. See Whitaker v. Garcetti , 486 F.3d 572, 583

- 84 (9th Cir. 2007)
(irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily
imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the

conviction h as been invalidated); see also Lyall v. City of Los Angeles , 807 F.3d

1178 , 1190

- 92 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding plaintiff’s claims were Heck

- barred
where they necessarily called into question his infraction conviction and he failed
to challenge the convict ion prior to filing the § 1983 suit). Thus, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Geiger leave to proceed IFP. See
O’Loughlin , 920 F.2d at 617.

AFFIRMED

.
§ 802.1105 Refunds. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the Department of the Treasury shall not refund a filing fee in whole or in part.
( b ) If the Committee determines that the transaction is not a covered real estate transaction, the filing fee shall be refunded.
( c ) In response to a petition by a party, if the Staff Chairperson determines, based on the information and representations contained in the formal written notice, as well as any other information provided by the parties, that a party or the parties to a transaction paid a filing fee in an amount greater than required at the time of filing, the Department of the Treasury shall refund the amount of overpayment to the party or parties who paid the filing fee.
699 A.2d 709

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Troy Edward GRANDEL, Respondent.

No. 352 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1997, there having been filed with this Court by Troy Edward Grandel his verified Statement of Resignation dated June 10,1997, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Troy Edward Grandel be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
HomePalau

# Palau

79 items

        -    DipNote  		Opinion: To Solve Climate Change, Dive Into the Power of the Ocean	  April 7, 2022 
        -    		Our Ocean Conference	   
        -    Press Statement  		Announcing the Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 22, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Palau National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 30, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Palauan President Whipps, Jr.	  August 4, 2021 
        -    Remarks to the Press  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and President of Palau Surangel Whipps, Jr. Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 4, 2021Treaty RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Palau	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		The United States and the Republic of Palau Partner on Our Ocean Conference 2022	  June 11, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Palau	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 1, 2021Washington, DC 

previous page1…345678next page

Back to Top
# C_2005243EN.01000702.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 2 June 2005 in Montex Holdings Ltd. v Diesel S.p.A.

(Case C-281/05)

(2005/C 243/10)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) of 2 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Montex Holdings Ltd. and Diesel S.p.A. on the following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) and concerning Articles 28 to 30 EC:

1

| (a) | Does a registered trade mark grant its proprietor the right to prohibit the transit of goods with the sign? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Does a registered trade mark grant its proprietor the right to prohibit the transit of goods with the sign?

| (b) | If the answer is in the affirmative: may a particular assessment be based on the fact that the sign enjoys no protection in the country of destination? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the answer is in the affirmative: may a particular assessment be based on the fact that the sign enjoys no protection in the country of destination?

| (c) | If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative and irrespective of the answer to (b), is a distinction to be drawn according to whether the article whose destination is a Member State comes from a Member State, an associated State or a third country? Is it relevant in this regard whether the article has been produced in the country of origin lawfully or in infringement of a right to a sign existing there held by the trade-mark proprietor? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative and irrespective of the answer to (b), is a distinction to be drawn according to whether the article whose destination is a Member State comes from a Member State, an associated State or a third country? Is it relevant in this regard whether the article has been produced in the country of origin lawfully or in infringement of a right to a sign existing there held by the trade-mark proprietor?

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

1

---
§ 136.310 Health professions recruitment grants. Grants awarded under this subdivision, in accordance with section 102 of the Act, are for the purpose of assisting in meeting the costs of projects to: ( a ) Identify Indians with a potential for education or training in the health professions and encouraging and assisting them (1) To enroll in schools of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatry, pharmacy, public health, nursing, or allied health professions; or (2), if they are not qualified to enroll in any such school, to undertake such post-secondary education or training as may be required to qualify them for enrollment;
( b ) Publicize existing sources of financial aid available to Indians enrolled in any school referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or who are undertaking training necessary to qualify them to enroll in any such school; or
( c ) Establish other programs which the Secretary determines will enhance and facilitate the enrollment of Indians, and the subsequent pursuit and completion by them of courses of study, in any school referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
§ 1008.15 Facts subject to advisory opinions. ( a ) The OIG will consider requests from a requesting party for advisory opinions regarding the application of specific facts to the subject matters set forth in § 1008.5(a) of this part. The facts must relate to an existing arrangement, or one which the requestor in good faith plans to undertake. The plans may be contingent upon receiving a favorable advisory opinion. The advisory opinion request should contain a complete description of the arrangement that the requestor is undertaking, or plans to undertake.
( b ) Requests presenting a general question of interpretation, posing a hypothetical situation, or regarding the activities of third parties do not qualify as advisory opinion requests.
( c ) An advisory opinion request will not be accepted, and/or an opinion will not be issued when— ( 1 ) The request is not related to a named individual or entity; or
( 2 ) An informed opinion cannot be made, or could be made only after extensive investigation, clinical study, testing, or collateral inquiry.
[62 FR 7357, Feb. 19, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 38324, July 16, 1998; 87 FR 1369, Jan. 11, 2022]
#### § 589.503 Exclusion from licenses.

OFAC reserves the right to exclude any person, property, transaction, or class thereof from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. OFAC also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lewis Travels to Sweden and Czechia

# 									Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lewis Travels to Sweden and Czechia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 26, 2024

Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Jessica Lewis travels to Sweden and Czechia, April 27-May 1, 2024, where she will meet with senior civilian and military officials, as well as defense industry executives to discuss regional security cooperation and supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s aggression.

In Stockholm, Sweden, Assistant Secretary Lewis will meet with our newest NATO Ally to build on longstanding defense cooperation to meet shared regional security challenges. In Prague, Czechia, Assistant Secretary Lewis will meet with senior military officials as well as defense manufacturers to address the urgent need for enhancing the Alliance’s defense capabilities.

For further information, please contact the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at PM-CPA@state.gov and follow @StateDeptPM on Twitter.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Political-Military AffairsCzech RepublicOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelSweden

Back to Top
§ 405.2444 Change of ownership. ( a ) *What constitutes change of ownership* — ( 1 ) *Incorporation.* The incorporation of an unincorporated FQHC constitutes change of ownership.
( 2 ) *Merger.* The merger of the FQHC corporation into another corporation, or the consolidation of two or more corporations, one of which is the FQHC corporation, resulting in the creation of a new corporation, constitutes a change of ownership. (The merger of another corporation into the FQHC corporation does not constitute change of ownership.)
( 3 ) *Leasing.* The lease of all or part of an entity constitutes a change of ownership of the leased portion.
( b ) *Notice to CMS.* A FQHC which is contemplating or negotiating change of ownership must notify CMS.
( c ) *Assignment of agreement.* When there is a change of ownership as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the agreement with the existing FQHC is automatically assigned to the new owner if it continues to meet the conditions to be a FQHC.
( d ) *Conditions that apply to assigned agreements.* An assigned agreement is subject to all applicable statutes and regulations and to the terms and conditions under which it was originally issued including, but not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Compliance with applicable health and safety standards.
( 2 ) Compliance with the ownership and financial interest disclosure requirements of part 420, subpart C of this subchapter.
[57 FR 24978, June 12, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 25476, May 2, 2014]
#### § 137.31 What is included in a compact?

A compact shall include general terms setting forth the government-to-government relationship consistent with the Federal Government's trust responsibility and statutory and treaty obligations to Indian Tribes and such other terms as the parties intend to control from year to year.
|   | EXHIBIT 32.2 |
|--------|--------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C., SECTION 1350 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|

|   | AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | BY  /s/ Connie Woods Hawkins    |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Connie Woods Hawkins     |
|   | Title:  Chief Financial Officer |
|   |  Date:  May 7, 2010   |

----
693 A.2d 579

#### In the Matter of Christopher H. CASEY.

No. 136 DB 96.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 24, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 1997, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated January 17, 1997, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that CHRISTOPHER H. CASEY, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board *28in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
HomeMoldova

# Moldova

111 items

        -    Media Note  		United States and Moldova Sign Open Skies Agreement	  May 18, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Moldova	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Verma’s Travel to Poland, Moldova, and Romania	  May 14, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Senior Official for Global Women’s Issues Fotovat Travels to the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Moldova, and Denmark	  May 3, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the U.S.-Moldova Strategic Dialogue	  March 23, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Moldova	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 27, 2023	  Ned PriceFebruary 27, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 23, 2023	  Ned PriceFebruary 23, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Addressing Hate-Based Crimes in Moldova	  February 22, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Moldovan President Sandu	  February 17, 2023 

previous page123456…12next page

Back to Top
HomeTajikistan

# Tajikistan

81 items

        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Making a Difference: Returning Cultivated Lands on Tajik-Afghan Border to Local Communities	  April 7, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Tajikistan	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Occasion of a Trilateral Discussion among Afghanistan, Tajikistan and the United States	  March 19, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 17, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 17, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Tajikistan	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Tajikistan	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Tajikistan	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Tajikistan	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		Evaluation of Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP) and Special Assistance to Business Internship and Training (SABIT) [PDF]	  May 18, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Tajikistan	  March 11, 2020 

previous page1…456789next page

Back to Top
# C_2005296EN.01001102.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/11

---

Action brought on 22 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-297/05)

(2005/C 296/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel van Beek and Désirée Zijlstra, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by requiring motor vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State to undergo a technical examination before they can be registered in the Netherlands, where no such examination is required in the case where a motor vehicle previously registered in the Netherlands is transferred to the ownership or control of another person established there, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by requiring motor vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State to undergo a technical examination before they can be registered in the Netherlands, where no such examination is required in the case where a motor vehicle previously registered in the Netherlands is transferred to the ownership or control of another person established there, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

| 2. | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The technical examinations which the Netherlands require motor vehicles previously registered in another Member State to undergo as a precondition of entry in the national vehicle licence plate register cannot be justified in the light of the objectives mentioned in Article 30 EC or for the purpose of meeting any mandatory requirement as recognised in the Court's case-law.

---