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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD FLOYD JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CR-90-254, CA-92-1794-4-2BC)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Floyd Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II,

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)

and the order declining to reconsider the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and the order denying Appellant's post-judgment motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Jackson, Nos. CR-90-254; CA-92-1794-4-2BC (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 1996;

Mar. 21, 1997). 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2306
LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROSYLN CHILDREN CENTER; BRAZILIAN CONSULATE; LEAH CAKE SOUTHERLIN, Probation Officer; BEVERLY RUSSELL, Dr.; FAIRFAX COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER; URSULA KOENIG; ELLEN ZEHL, Defendants - Appellees, and REX PAGERIE, Officer; KATRENE ENGLAND, Officer, Defendants.

No. 04-2568
LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROSYLN CHILDREN CENTER; REX PAGERIE, Officer; KATRENE ENGLAND, Officer; BRAZILIAN CONSULATE; LEAH CAKE SOUTHERLIN, Probation Officer;- 2 - BEVERLY RUSSELL, Dr.; FAIRFAX COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER; URSULA KOENIG; ELLEN ZEHL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-04-867) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. No. 04-2306 dismissed; No. 04-2568 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Marvel Ross, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Lenir Richardson appeals a district court order dismissing as frivolous some of her claims and some of the defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) and a district court order dismissing the remainder of her complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. In No. 04-2306, we review the district court’s dismissal de novo. We have reviewed the record and find the district court properly dismissed some claims and some defendants as frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous. In No. 04-2568, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeRichardson v. Roslyn Children Center , No. CA-04-867 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 17, 2004; entered Nov. 19, 2004). 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.

No. 04-2306 DISMISSED

No. 04-2568 AFFIRMED
# Official Journal C 172A/27 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 172A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5827 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 172A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5827 May 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 172A/01 | Vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the Shift to Rail Joint Undertaking, in Brussels (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2015/20006 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 172A/01

Vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the Shift to Rail Joint Undertaking, in Brussels (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2015/20006

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Jerome H. Kern et al., Appellants, v Robert Currie Assocs. et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 75]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about February 16, 1995, which dismissed plaintiffs’ cause of action for an accounting upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment thereon, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment and reinstating the cause of action for an accounting, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In addition to imposing contractual duties, a contractual relationship may give rise to fiduciary duties regardless of whether the contract itself includes specific words or language *256in that regard *(see, Mandelblatt v Devon Stores,*132 AD2d 162, 167-168). "It is fundamental that a fiduciary duty 'is not dependent solely upon an agreement or contractual relation between the fiduciary and the beneficiary but results from the relation.’ ” *(Northeast Gen. Corp. v Wellington Adv.,*82 NY2d 158, 172 [Hancock, Jr., J., dissenting].) Plaintiffs’ allegations that they relied on defendants’ expert advice as interior designers and entrusted them with their money for the purpose of procuring furnishings that defendants helped plaintiffs select, the fact that defendants do not have a stockroom and that many of the furnishings were custom-made by the various suppliers, and language in the contract itself indicating that defendants were to act, in effect, as a middleman between plaintiffs and the suppliers, tend to refute defendants’ contention that their relationship with plaintiffs was that of vendor and vendee. An issue of fact is therefore raised as to whether the relationship was in fact fiduciary in nature, such that an accounting of the money plaintiffs paid defendants would be warranted. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Case No. 6,564.

#### HODGSON v. BUTTS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 488.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1808.

Payment under Mistake — Reimbcksement.

The purchaser of a vessel, who has paid the expenses and disbursements of a previous voyage upon the order of the master, cannot recover them from the master, although he paid them under a mistaken expectation that he was to be reimbursed out of the freight.

Assumpsit to recover the expenses and disbursements of- the schooner Mississippi, which the plaintiff (who was the owner, by virtue of an absolute bill of sale made by R. & J. Hamilton to him, after the end of the voyage,) had paid on the orders of the defendant, who had been master of the schooner during the voyage, and who had received the freight, and applied It according to the directions of the former owners, R. & J. Hamilton.

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

prayed the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that the defendant was not liable, although the plaintiff had paid those expenses and disbursements, under a mistaken expectation that he was to be reimbursed out of the freight which the vessel had earned, whether he paid them before or after he obtained possession of the vessel.

The defendant, the master, was- not liable to the seamen for their wages, unless he had shipped them, and had personally made agreement with them. But if he had paid them, he would have a lien on the- vessel therefor, which would have followed the vessel into the hands of the plaintiff, so that he could not have obtained a clear title until he had refunded them. Abb. Shipp. 106.

Mr. Swann and E. J. Lee; for plaintiff,

prayed the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that if the plaintiff was not the owner of the vessel, and the orders were drawn up on the personal credit of the- defendant; or. if at the time of drawing it was understood by the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff was to be reimbursed out of the freight already earned, the- defendant is liable.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch,. Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(DUCKETT; Circuit Judge; absent)

gave the instruction prayed by Mr. Jones, and refused to give that prayed by Mr. Swann and Mr. Lee, because the evidence did not justify an inference by the-jury, that the plaintiff was not the- owner of' the vessel at the time of paying the- defendant’s drafts, nor that the orders were drawn on the personal credit of the defendant; nor that there was any understanding by the plaintiff and defendant that the plaintiff was to be reimbursed out of the freight.

*283Verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY Regulation 39.001 

 Page 1 of 1 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below issues the following 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) under subregulation 39.001 (1) of CASR 1998. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the 

delegate considers necessary to correct an unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the 

circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in 

the compliance section. 

GippsAero GA8 Series Aeroplanes 

AD/GA8/8 Engine Mount Fire Seal Washer 24/2014 

Applicability: All GA8-TC 320 aircraft. 

Requirement: Comply with GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115 Issue 1, or later 

approved revision. 

Compliance: Within 300 hours flight time or 12 months, from the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first. 

 The effective date of this AD is 1 December 2014. 

Background: A recent review of the engine mount installation on the GA8-TC 320 aircraft has 

highlighted the omission of engine mount fire seal washers during the assembly 

process. 

The current engine mount configuration does not meet the certification basis for the 

aircraft, specifically regulation 23.865 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the 

United States of America, where engine mounts located in designated fire zones are 

required to be suitably shielded so that they are capable of withstanding the effects of 

a fire. 

The Gippsland Aeronautics GA8-TC 320 aircraft require the installation of an 

approved steel washer at each of the engine mount locations to address a potential risk 

of reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire. 

Peter Nikolic 

Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 

24 November 2014
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.213


June 22, 1999


J. Jay Hoker
2201 South Flagler
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401


Dear Jay:

This letter supplements and amends your Employment Agreement with Paxson
Communications Corporation (the "Company") dated as of June 11, 1998 (the
"Employment Agreement"). Effective July 6, 1999, your Employment Agreement
shall be deemed amended generally as required to give effect to following terms
and conditions:

1.       Your employment duties will be changed to reflect that you will be
         retained by the Company as a consultant and will be paid a retainer
         fee in connection with making yourself available for such consulting
         services at a rate of $6,000/month. Actual consulting services
         preformed shall be subject to mutually acceptable compensation terms
         and the retainer fee shall not be deemed to require you to perform any
         consulting services not separately agreed to. You will continue to be
         reimbursed for business expenses (travel, lodging, etc.) in accordance
         with the Company's policies in effect from time to time.

2.       The term of the consulting services to be provided by you hereunder
         shall remain in effect through and including January 1, 2000, at which
         time the Employment Agreement and the consulting services contemplated
         hereunder shall terminate.

3.       It is the intent of the parties that subject only to early termination
         for cause, as defined under the Employment Agreement, your employment
         shall otherwise be non-terminable prior to January 1, 2000 and you
         shall be able to vest into the stock options currently scheduled to
         vest during the calendar year ended December 31, 1999 under the terms
         of your various Stock Option Grant Agreements. In addition, any vested
         and unexercised stock options you hold as of January 1, 2000 shall be
         exercisable by you or your estate until December 31, 2001
         notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any stock option grant
         agreement.



<PAGE>   2


J. Jay Hoker
March 7, 2000
Page 2


4.       You shall be entitled to COBRA and any regular benefits that the
         Company provides to terminated employees for a term of eighteen (18)
         months beginning January 1, 2000. During the remaining term of your
         employment, you will continue to be eligible to defer a percentage of
         your monthly compensation, in accordance with the percentage you
         elected earlier this year under the terms of the Company's deferred
         compensation plan.

On behalf of the senior management of the Company, your contribution to the
success of Paxson has been significant and we are pleased that you will
continue to be available to us on a consulting basis.

Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 682-4205.

Sincerely,



Anthony L. Morrison
Executive Vice President, General Counsel

enclosure




Accepted and agreed this _____ day of June, 1999.




J. Jay Hoker
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 111

Designating the week beginning September 14, 1997, as ‘‘National

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

Mr. THURMOND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning September 14, 1997, as

‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Week’’, and for other purposes.

Whereas there are 116 historically black colleges and universities in the United States;

Whereas black colleges and universities provide the quality

education so essential to full participation in a complex,

highly technological society;

Whereas black colleges and universities have a rich heritage

and have played a prominent role in American history;

Whereas black colleges and universities have allowed many

underprivileged students to attain their full potential

through higher education; and
2

•SRES 111 IS

Whereas the achievements and goals of historically black colleges and universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the week beginning September

3 14, 1997, as ‘‘National Historically Black Colleges

4 and Universities Week’’; and

5 (2) requests that the President of the United

6 States issue a proclamation calling on the people of

7 the United States and interested groups to observe

8 the week with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and

9 programs to demonstrate support for historically

10 black colleges and universities in the United States.

Æ
Order entered July 10, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00362
- CR No. 05
- 19
- 0036 3
- CR
JOSE LOUIS DELUNA JR ., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Ap peal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 219
- 83536
- 2018 & 219
- 83537
- 2018



### O RDER
T he reporter’s record was due May 6, 2019. When it was not timely filed, we notified court reporter Indu Bailey by postcard dat ed May 8, 2019 and directed her to file the reporter’s record by June 7, 2019. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed and we have had no communication from Ms. Bailey.
We ORDER the complete reporter’s record filed BY JULY 24 , 201 9 . We cautio n Ms. Bailey that the failure to file the reporter’s record by that date will result in the Court taking whatever remedies it has available to ensure that the appeals proceed in a timely fashion, which may include ordering that she not sit until the comple te reporter’s record is filed.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Jennifer Edgeworth,

Presiding Judge, 219th Judicial District Court; Indu Bailey, official court reporter, 219th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
```

[106th Congress Public Law 574]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ574.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 3062]]

Public Law 106-574
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To authorize the addition of land to <<NOTE: Dec. 28, 2000 -  [H.R. 
         4020]>> Sequoia National Park, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO SEQUOIA <<NOTE: California. 16 USC 
            45g.>> NATIONAL PARK.

    (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall acquire by 
donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, all 
interest in and to the land described in subsection (b) for addition to 
Sequoia National Park, California.
    (b) Land Acquired.--The land referred to in subsection (a) is the 
land depicted on the map entitled ``Dillonwood'', numbered 102/80,044, 
and dated September 1999.
    (c) Addition to Park.--Upon acquisition of the land under subsection 
(a)--
            (1) the Secretary of the Interior shall--
                    (A) modify the boundaries of Sequoia National Park 
                to include the land within the park; and
                    (B) administer the land as part of Sequoia National 
                Park in accordance with all applicable laws; and
            (2) the Secretary of Agriculture shall modify the boundaries 
        of the Sequoia National Forest to exclude the land from the 
        forest boundaries.

    Approved December 28, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4020 (S. 2279):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-377 accompanying S. 2279 (Comm. on Energy and 
Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 30, 31, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 15, considered and passed Senate, amended. House agreed 
                to Senate amendment.

                                  <all>
```
#### Charles OGBAEGBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-2026.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 2005.

Decided July 19, 2005.

Austin Goman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Laura G. Fox, Laura G. Fox, PLLC, Warrenton, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles I. Ogbaegbe appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.*
      *101We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Price *v. Thompson,*380 F.3d 209, 212 (4th Cir.2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); *United States Dep’t of Labor v. N.C. Growers Ass’n,*377 F.3d 345, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

To the extent Ogbaegbe alleges educational malpractice, that is not a cognizable cause of action in Virginia. *See Sellers v. School Bd. of the City of Manassas,*960 F.Supp. 1006, 1012 (E.D.Va.1997), *affd,*141 F.3d 524 (4th Cir.1998). Furthermore, no genuine issue of material fact exists to inhibit summary judgment on the breach of contract allegation. Finally, Ogbaegbe’s statutory claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, as neither he nor his agent, attorney or representative “commenced such action or ... filed by registered mail a written statement of the nature of the claim with the potential defendant or defendants within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged violation.” Va.Code Ann. § 51.6-45(B) (Michie 2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the magistrate judge.

*AFFIRMED.*

This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).
# C_2005182EN.01003404.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/34

---

Removal from the register of Case C-474/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 182/64)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 9 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-474/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

December 19, 1950

No. 55001.

#### Latham Watch Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 112711-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority the items marked “A” were held properly dutiable at the *307base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*