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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7498

DONALD LEE BARRICK, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN OZMINT, Director, South Carolina

Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General 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-03-2685)

Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 2, 2004

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Barrick 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 contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# Assignment of Function Under Section 721(k) of the Defense Production Act of 1950

# Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 721(k) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(k)), for purposes of submitting such report by February 28, 2007.

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

[FR Doc. 07-20

Billing code 4810-25-M
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PATRICIA ANN FORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROOSEN, VARCHETTI & OLIVIER,

PLLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-14794 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DAVID R. GRAND

 / 

JUDGMENT 

 All issues having been resolved by the court’s Order [19] of January 26, 

2016, THIS CASE IS CLOSED. 

 Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 26th day of January 2016. 

 

 DAVID J. WEAVER 

 CLERK OF THE COURT 

 BY: s/Michael E. Lang 

 Deputy Clerk 

 

Approved: 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG ECF No. 20 filed 01/26/16 PageID.139 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Case Number 14-14256 

 Plaintiff Hon. George Caram Steeh 

-vMICHAELA DOAK-LUEVANOS 

 

 Defendant 

and 

HOMESTEAD HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

 Garnishees 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

ORDER RESOLVING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO GARNISHMENT 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon Writs of Garnishment 

directed to Garnishees, Homestead Home Health Care, Inc. and the Michigan 

Department of Treasury; and Defendant having filed a Request for Hearing; and a 

hearing having been held on 3/3/2015; and the parties having reached a resolution and 

having placed same on the record: now therefore: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s objections to garnishment as set 

forth in Defendant’s Request for Hearing with respect to the Writs of Garnishment 

directed to Garnishees Homestead Home Health Care, Inc. and the Michigan 

Department of Treasury are hereby withdrawn. 

2:14-cv-14256-GCS-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 03/05/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 72
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Writ of Garnishment directed to the 

Michigan Department of Treasury is withdrawn by Plaintiff and shall be of no further 

force and effect. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for all pay periods in January, February, March 

and April 2015, Garnishee, Homestead Home Health Care, Inc., shall withhold the sum 

of -0- from each of Defendant’s biweekly pay checks. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that commencing with Defendant’s first pay period in 

May 2015, Garnishee, Homestead Home Health Care, Inc., shall withhold from each of 

Defendant’s biweekly pay checks to the sum of $32.50 biweekly, and shall forward said 

sum to the U.S. Department of Justice, NCIF, P.O. Box 790363, St. Louis, MO 63179-

0363. Said biweekly withholding shall continue until such time as the Judgment is 

satisfied in full, or until further order of this Court. 

Dated: March 5, 2015 s/George Caram Steeh 

 United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this document were served upon attorneys/parties 

of record on date above by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Case Manager 

2:14-cv-14256-GCS-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 03/05/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 73
Nos. 06-969 and 06-970

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Appellant,

—v.—

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.,

Appellee.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, et al.,

Appellants,

—v.—

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.,

Appellee.

ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE

STEVEN R. SHAPIRO

(Counsel of Record)

MARK J. LOPEZ

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION

125 Broad Street

New York, New York 10004

(212) 549-2500

JOEL M. GORA

250 Joralemon Street

Brooklyn, New York 11201

(718) 780-7926

d
# C_2013055EN.01001202.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/12

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2012 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-205/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 55/21

Language of the case: Germany

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

1

---
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.                  

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

*Time and Date:*                     Thursday, April 26, 2007, 10 a.m. (Open Portion) 10:15 a.m. (Closed Portion).                

*Place:*                     Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.                

*Status:*                     Meeting Open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.).                

*Matters to be Considered:*

1. President's Report.

2. Tribute—Ambassador Josette Sheeran.

3. Tribute—Steven J. Law.

4. Approval of January 18, 2007 Minutes (Open Portion.

*Further Matters to be Considered:*                     (Closed to the Public 10:15 a.m.)                

1. Report from Audit Committee.

2. Finance Project—Global.

3. Finance Project—Central America.

4. Finance Project—Israel.

5. Finance Project—Latin America and Pakistan.

6. Approval of January 18, 2007 Minutes (Closed Portion).

7. Pending Major Projects.

8. Reports.

*Contact Person for Information:*                     Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.                

Dated: April 12, 2007.

Connie M. Downs,

Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

[FR Doc. 07-1903  Filed 4-12-07; 3:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60303

Summary Calendar

CECILIA YANIRA CHAVEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Cecilia Yaniera ChavezLopez,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 895 824

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cecilia Yanira Chavez-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing her appeal of the denial of her applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal by an immigration judge (IJ). Chavez-Lopez argues 

that (1) the IJ and BIA should have applied a mixed motive standard because

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60303 Document: 00514667962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2018
No. 17-60303

2

membership in a particular social group need not be the sole reason for her 

persecution and (2) there was not substantial evidence to support the finding 

that she was being persecuted due to a personal dispute.

Generally, we have authority to review only the decision of the BIA but 

will consider the IJ’s decision if it influenced the determination of the BIA. 

Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the BIA agreed 

with the IJ’s findings and conclusions, the IJ’s findings are reviewable. See

Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010). We review 

findings of fact for substantial evidence, and we review rulings of law de novo. 

See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. 

Contrary to Chavez-Lopez’s assertion that the IJ and BIA applied the 

wrong legal standard to her claims for asylum and withholding of removal, the 

record reveals that the IJ at least implicitly considered the mixed motive test 

and explicitly concluded that Chavez-Lopez’s membership in a particular social 

group was not a central reason for her persecution. Moreover, such claims will 

fail if the persecution is based on a purely personal motive and there is no 

nexus to a recognized ground. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th 

Cir. 2004). Substantial record evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s 

conclusion that Chavez-Lopez’s persecution was the result of a personal 

business dispute. See id. at 792-93. Chavez-Lopez has not demonstrated that 

the evidence compels reversal of the BIA’s finding that she was not entitled to 

asylum or withholding of removal. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134-

38 (5th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, her petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60303 Document: 00514667962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2018
§ 178.215 Weight of passengers and crew. ( a ) This section applies to each vessel, regardless of when constructed, for which stability information is based on the results of a simplified stability proof test.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, and if not provided in the stability information required, the owner of each vessel must provide the master with the total test weight used in the simplified stability proof test and the number of passengers and crew included in the total test weight. Owners and masters must use a total weight of passengers and crew carried that is based upon an assumed weight per person, which is determined in accordance with § 170.090 of this chapter.
( c ) The information specified in paragraph (b) of this section need not be provided if the owner attests that the vessel complies with applicable intact stability requirements when carrying the number of passengers and crew permitted by the Certificate of Inspection with an assumed weight per person determined in accordance with § 170.090 of this chapter.
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
Argued December 13, 1918,

reversed February 11, 1919.

#### BERRIDGE *v.*NICKELL.

(178 Pac. 353.)

Comities — Compensation of Accountants — Statute—Mandatory Provisions — “Authorized and Empowered,”

1. The words “authorized and empowered,” used in Laws of 1917, page 481, providing that every county whose books and accounts were audited under Laws of 1913, page 545, and which have not paid accountants making audit, is authorized and empowered to compensate accountants, are mandatory and not permissive.

[As to power of county or other municipal corporation to employ expert accountants to examine public accounts and records, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1087.]

From Yamhill; Harry H. Belt, Judge.

Department 2.

Proceedings in *mandamus*by Arthur Berridge and another, doing business as Arthur Berridge & Co., against W. W. Nickell, County Judge of Yamhill County, and others. From the' judgment rendered, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs.

Reversed. Judgment Entered.

For appellants there was a brief with oral arguments by *Mr. Andrew M. Crawford*and *Mr. Frank Holmes.*

For respondents there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. Roswell L.*Conner, District Attorney.

McBRIDE, C. J.

This is a proceeding in *mandamus*to compel the County Court to pass upon a claim of plaintiffs for services rendered in auditing the books and accounts of Yamhill County, pursuant to a contract with the State Insurance Commissioner. The *52facts are practically identical with those in *Mackenzie*v. *Douglas County, post,*p. 375 (178 Pac. 350), and the reasoning in that case applies here.

Plaintiffs had begun an action claiming the right to recover under the provision of Chapter 286, Laws of 1913, but after the opinions of this court were rendered in *Mackenzie*v. *Douglas County,*81 Or. 442 (159 Pac. 625, 1033), and *Berridge*v. *Marion*County, 81 Or. 391 (159 Pac. 628), they refused to. proceed further and their action was dismissed for want of prosecution. When Chapter 252, Laws of 1917, was enacted plaintiffs again presented their claim, but the County Court refused to take any action whatever and thereupon plaintiffs brought this proceeding to compel the court to pass upon their claim.

In addition to what is said in *Mackenzie*v. *Douglas County,*we may add that in our opinion the words “authorized and empowered” used in Chapter 252, Laws of 1917, are mandatory and not permissive, the rule being that where these, or like words, are used in a statute to provide for the doing of some act required by public duty or justice or where the rights of a citizen are concerned, they will be construed as mandatory: See title, “Authorize,” 1 Words & Phrases, 647.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and a judgment will be entered here directing the County Court to pass upon the claim. .

Reversed. Judgment Entered.

Bean, Johns and Burnett, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNITED
PAN-EUROPE N.V.'S MARCH 31, 2000 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> EURO

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.9959
<CASH>                                         732,450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (26,125)
<INVENTORY>                                     97,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,107,789
<PP&E>                                       2,408,830
<DEPRECIATION>                               (289,299)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,588,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,212,927
<BONDS>                                      4,456,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       436,230
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,299,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,588,465
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,263
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (309,706)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (160,788)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (467,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (21)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (467,371)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (467,371)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)


</TABLE>
# C_2013225EN.01008401.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-56/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading)

2013/C 225/192

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision downgrading the applicant by two grades in the same function group.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011. p. 31.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.176-11 Performance. ( a ) *General.* Each inflatable lifejacket must be able to pass the tests in § 160.176-13 of this part.
( b ) *Snag Hazard.* The lifejacket must not present a snag hazard when properly worn.
( c ) *Chamber Attachment.* Each inflation chamber on or inside an inflatable lifejacket must not be able to be moved to a position that- ( 1 ) Prevents full inflation; or
( 2 ) Allows inflation in a location other than in its intended location.
( d ) *Comfort.* The lifejacket must not cause significant discomfort to the wearer during and after inflation.
#### Jesse Peck, *Appellant, v.*Patrick Callaghan, Respondent.

Decree affirmed on the opinion of the surrogate, with costs.
#### Samuel P. Fox, *as Commissioner of Highways, v.*The Erie Preserving Company.

Order reversed, without costs, with leave to the defendant to serve an amended answer in twenty days.

Haight, J., not sitting.
# C_2013359EN.01001201.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/12

---

Order of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Michail v Commission

(Case T-597/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Appeal clearly unfounded)

2013/C 359/21

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 in case F-100/09 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

Michail

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Christos Michail will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Christos Michail will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

1

---