alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7117** 

RALPH TAYLOR, JR. , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 00246

- MSD

- DEM )

Submitted : December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ralph Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ralph Taylor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion . The order s are 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 showin g 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 th e 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 Taylor has not made the requisit e showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10401

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES MARES REYNA, JR., also known as

Andres Mares Reyna,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-260-1-E

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

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Mares Reyna, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to

distribute.

The Government contends that Reyna waived the right to

appeal his sentence. Because the district court did not ensure

that Reyna understood the plea agreement’s waiver-of-appeal

provision and its consequences, the provision is ineffective. 
No. 00-10401

-2-

United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 518 (5th Cir. 1999);

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(6).

Reyna argues that the district court erred in denying him a

reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of

responsibility. We perceive no error in the district court’s

denial of the reduction. See United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d

177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rickett, 89 F.3d 224,

226-27 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2006048EN.01003401.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/34

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005 — Bustec Ireland v OHIM

(Case T-218/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 48/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bustec Ireland (Shanon, County Clare, Ireland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mustek, S.L. (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Action

brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2005 (Case R 1125/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings brought against the registration of the Community trade mark BUSTEC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares it no longer necessary to give judgment on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares it no longer necessary to give judgment on the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005.

1

---
HomeVenezuela

# Venezuela

159 items

        -    Press Statement  		Venezuela: Sanctions Actions and Supporting Democracy	  Matthew MillerJanuary 30, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Venezuelan Supreme Court Rulings and the Barbados Agreement	  Matthew MillerJanuary 27, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Venezuela: Arrests and Detentions of Democratic Opposition and Civil Society	  Matthew MillerJanuary 23, 2024 
        -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Welcome Corps:  First Year of Refugee Private Sponsorship a Big Success	  January 19, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Release of U.S. Nationals and Electoral Roadmap Implementation in Venezuela	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 20, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Guyanese President Ali	  December 6, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 4, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 4, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Reviewing our Venezuela Sanctions Relief	  Matthew MillerDecember 1, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Venezuela	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Caracas, Venezuela: Escuela Campo Alegre: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  November 6, 2023 

previous page1234…16next page

Back to Top
# C_2006048EN.01003601.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/36

---

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

(Case T-413/05)

(2006/C 48/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicant's career development report (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 — 31.12.2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant's career development report (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 — 31.12.2002;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant first submits that Article 26 of the Staff Regulations has been infringed, on the ground that his staff report is not physically present in his personal file, but is stored in electronic form and that there is no sign of the first version of that report either in the paper file or in the electronic file.

The applicant also claims infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, of the General Implementing Provisions for that latter article and of the Appraisal Guide and the special guide for the 2001-2002 exercise, on account of the fact that the appraisers are required by the Commission to comply with a ‘target’ average in respect of appraisal.

The applicant next submits that the system of merit points, established by the Commission, makes it possible to classify equally a number of officials with varying levels of performance which, in the applicant's view, infringes the principle of equal treatment.

Lastly, the applicant claims breach of the prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of the duty to state reasons, an abuse of powers, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti (abide by your own rules) and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials.

patere legem quam ipse fecisti

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be Wednesday, October 14, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be held Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. For more information please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the                     *Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated:August 31, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-21447 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Yearly Report of Benda Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the "Company")
to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yiqing Wan, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Yiqing WanName:
                  Yiqing
      WanTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive OfficerChief
      Financial and Accounting OfficerDate:
                  May
      18, 2010
# C_2005217EN.01006402.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-145/97 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/135)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-145/97, J.P.W. Vrencken v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

1

---
#### § 576.801 Procedures.

For license application procedures and procedures relating to amendments, modifications, or revocations of licenses; administrative decisions; rulemaking; and requests for documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a), see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter.
# Sint Maarten

13 items

        -    Report  		St. Maarten	  June 20, 2019 
        -    Air Transport Agreement  		Air Transport Agreement Between the United States of America and the Netherlands, in Respect of Sint Maarten of July 14, 2017	  July 14, 2017 
        -    Air Transport Agreement  		Memorandum of Consultations Between the United States of America and the Netherlands, in Respect of Sint Maarten of March 21, 2017	  March 21, 2017 

previous page12

Back to Top
#### SUNRISE POINT, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. RELIANCE REALTY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 78-1508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 1, 1979.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1979.

Sparber, Shevin, Rosen, Shapo & Heil-bronner, David A. Freedman, Miami, for appellant.

Patton, Kanner, Segal, Zeller & King and Dennis G. King, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sunrise Point, Inc., was the defendant-counterplaintiff in the trial court and appellee Reliance Realty, Inc., was the plaintiff-counterdefendant. The action arose under an exclusive contract for broker commissions upon the sale of condominium units in a condominium development. The contract was mutually dissolved prior to the action. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff realtor on its claim and for the defendant developer upon its counterclaim. Each party has appealed.

*675The appellant developer’s principal reliance is upon its point claiming that recovery could not be allowed the plaintiff realtor where the jury also found that the defendant was entitled to recovery for breaches of the same contract by the plaintiff. Our review of the record convinces us that there is no inconsistency in the verdict. Cf. *Southeastern Builders, Inc. of Alabama v. Joe Brashears Steel, Inc.,*336 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We have examined the other points presented by the appellant and have found them not to present error.

The cross-appeal asks us to examine the evidence upon the basis that there is no rational explanation for the amount awarded on the counterclaim. We affirm upon authority of the rule that “[t]he jury is the sole judge of such factual issue [damages] and neither the trial judge nor an appellate court may substitute its judgment on such issue for that of the jury.” *Jefferson Realty of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. United States Rubber Company,*222 So.2d 738 (Fla.1969). Other points presented upon appellee’s cross-appeal do not present error.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James Ray DYKES.

No. 64227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 9, 1979.

In re James Ray Dykes, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Orleans. No. 267-471.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy upon review in event of conviction.
# C_2006074EN.01003402.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/34

---

Action brought on 18 January 2006 — Patak Dennstedt v Commission

(Case F-5/06)

(2006/C 74/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dunja Patak Dennstedt (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 4 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's objection taken together with the decision to reject the application previously submitted by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 4 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's objection taken together with the decision to reject the application previously submitted by the applicant;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the loss suffered;

| — | In the alternative, order the withdrawal of the disputed document from the inquiry report of 18 September 2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the withdrawal of the disputed document from the inquiry report of 18 September 2001;

| — | In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official receiving invalidity allowance, brought an action before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of certain decisions taken by the defendant. During those proceedings, she gained knowledge of a number of documents relating to internal Commission proceedings which concerned her and submitted an application, firstly, to obtain the withdrawal from the file of documents in which an official appeared to draw personal conclusions about the applicant's occupational illness and, secondly, to check whether the conduct of certain officials during a disciplinary procedure had complied with the requirements under the Staff Regulations.

The application having been rejected, the applicant entered an objection, which was also dismissed by the appointing authority.

In her action, the applicant first submits that the decision dismissing her objection is in breach of the defendant's obligations towards its officials. In her view, that decision infringes a number of general legal principles, such as the principle of good administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

The applicant subsequently adds that the Commission officials who spread and even included in an inquiry report false information about her occupational illness were guilty of serious misconduct. That misconduct leads to liability on the part of the defendant, who should therefore pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

---
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.25 Drugs, biologicals, supplies, appliances, and equipment. ( a ) *Drugs and biologicals.* Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, Medicare pays for drugs and biologicals as posthospital SNF care only if— ( 1 ) They represent a cost to the facility;
( 2 ) They are ordinarily furnished by the facility for the care and treatment of inpatients; and
( 3 ) They are furnished to an inpatient for use in the facility.
( b ) *Exception.* Medicare pays for a limited supply of drugs for use outside the facility if it is medically necessary to facilitate the beneficiary's departure from the facility and required until he or she can obtain a continuing supply.
( c ) *Supplies, appliances, and equipment.* Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, Medicare pays for supplies, appliances, and equipment as posthospital SNF care only if they are— ( 1 ) Ordinarily furnished by the facility to inpatients; and
( 2 ) Furnished to inpatients for use in the facility.
( d ) *Exception.* Medicare pays for items to be used after the individual leaves the facility if— ( 1 ) The item is one that the beneficiary must continue to use after leaving, such as a leg brace; or
( 2 ) The item is necessary to permit or facilitate the beneficiary's departure from the facility and is required until he or she can obtain a continuing supply, for example, sterile dressings.
[63 FR 26307, May 12, 1998]
# C_2006074EN.01000102.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 19 January 2006

in Case C-547/03 P Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Asia-Invest Programme - Public call for proposals - Contract - Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Manifest inadmissibility - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Measures of organisation of procedure - Request for production of documents - Parties requested to make written submissions on certain aspects of the proceedings)

(2006/C 74/02)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-547/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 22 December 2003, by Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), established in Pathumthani (Thailand) (lawyer: H. Teissier du Cros), the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the European Communities (represented by P.J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer, Agents) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, gave a judgment on 19 January 2006, in which it:

Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)

Commission of the European Communities

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21. 2. 2004.

1

---