alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PATRICK L. TAYLOR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 32 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7423

ELAN BELL

- VENEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. SHELBY SEARLS, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:22

- cv - 00232

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : October 4, 2023 Decided: October 10 , 2023

Before THACKER and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sherman Luis Lambert, Sr. , Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lindsay Sara See , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA , Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7423 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Elan Bell

- Veney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue abs ent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositiv e procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bell

- Veney 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 th e materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7423 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Roger K. Brooks, the Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of AmerUs Group Co. (the Company),
hereby certifies that:  (i)
    
    the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Roger K. BrooksRoger K. BrooksChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAmerUs Group Co.
 Dated: August 6, 2004 44
No. 59475.

protest 242750-K (Providence).

#### Brier Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

*313Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter *“A”*at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified, *supra,*for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*as imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 211
LT Case No. 21

- CA

- 1705

_____________________________

F ARAHNAZ G HANDI M C G LOTHIN

,

Appellant,

v.

K

YLE M C D ONALD

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Virginia Norton , Judge

.

Christian J. Lake, of Alexander Degance Barnett, P.A.

, Jacksonville , for Appellant.

Thomas S. Edwards, Jr., and Jennifer L. Reiber , of Edwards & Ragatz, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellee.

December 8, 2023

E DWARDS

, C.J

.

Appellant, Farahnaz Ghandi McGlothin, appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee, Kyle McDonald’s, motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive dama ges. We agree that Appellee’s proffer was insufficient to support a claim
that Appellant’s placement of concrete blocks that restricted drainage through a common grate constituted intentional2 misconduct or gross negligence. Appellee proffered nothing to suggest that Appellant had “actual knowledge” of the wrongfulness of her conduct or that there was a high probability that it would result in harm to Appellee. See Werner Enters., Inc.

v . Mendez

, 362 So. 3d 278, 28 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Furthermore, Appellee’s proposed amended complaint improperly set forth his claim for punitive damages as a stand

- alone count. See Keen v. Jennings , 327 So. 3d 435, 43 8

– 3 9 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) ( c iting Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co ., 187 So. 3d 1219, 1 221 (Fla. 2016) and Varnedore v. Copeland , 210 So. 3d 741, 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017 ) ) ;

s ee also Frugoli v. Winn

- Dixie Stores, Inc.

, 464 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse, quash the order permitting Appellee to amend his complai nt to seek punitive damages, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

R EVERSED ; O RDER Q UASHED and R EMANDED for further proceedings

.

B OATWRIGHT

, J., concur s

. J AY

, J., dissent s , without opinion

.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
  (i)
    
    the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Melinda S. Urion

Melinda S. Urion
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerAmerUs Group Co.
# C_2018072EN.01003501.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA

(Case T-630/16) (1)

1

((REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Notion of linked undertaking - Submission of a ‘Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size’ - 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge - Authority of the ECHA - Cessation of production of the substance))

(2018/C 072/45)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by J.-P. Trnka, E. Maurage and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the ECHA of 7 July 2016 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses as inadmissible the application for the suspension of the enforcement of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses as inadmissible the application for the suspension of the enforcement of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 July 2016;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

1

---
No. 67733.

#### American Bitumuls *&*Asphalt Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 206148-K, etc. (Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Bridgeport, Charleston, Galveston, Los Angeles, Mobile, Norfolk, Portland, Maine; Providence, San Francisco, Savannah, Tampa, Wilmington, and New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of crude petroleum, topped crude petroleum, or fuel oil derived from petroleum (including fuel oil known as gas) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Esso Standard Oil Company v. United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 54, C.D. 2314), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained as to 30 percent of the quantity of merchandise covered by the entries involved herein.
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 1 of 35

PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 2 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 3 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 4 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 5 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 6 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 7 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 8 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 9 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 10 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 11 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 12 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 13 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 14 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 15 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 16 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 17 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 18 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 19 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 20 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 21 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 22 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 23 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 24 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 25 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 26 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 27 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 28 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 29 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 30 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 31 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 32 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 33 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 34 of 35
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 1 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 35 of 35
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
P.O. BOX 51318
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19115-6318

To All Federal Agencies For Management Letter No. 10-02
Which Financial Services Are December 20, 2010

Provided By The Philadelphia

Financial Center (PFC)

The purpose of this memo is to outline the Philadelphia Financial Center’s (PFC)
schedule for the upcoming holiday season. First, due to Christmas Day falling on
Saturday this year, all federal agencies will be closed on Friday, December 24, 2010 in
observance of the holiday.

Therefore, all files and certifications received prior to the normal 5:30 PM cutoff time on
Thursday, December 23, 2010 will be processed and dated for Monday, December 27,
2010. All files and certifications received after the normal 5:30 PM cutoff time on
Thursday, December 23, 2010 will be processed and dated for Tuesday, December 28,
2010.

All Fedwire Payments, also known as Same Day Payment Request in SPS, received prior
to the normal cutoff time of 5:30 PM for domestic payments and 4:30 PM for
international payments on Thursday, December 23, 2010 will be processed for that day.
No payments will be issued on the observed holiday, Friday, December 24, 2010. Normal
processing will resume on Monday, December 27, 2010.

Finally, due to New Years Day falling on Saturday this year, all federal agencies will be
closed on Friday, December 31, 2010 in observance of the holiday. Therefore, all files
and certifications received prior to the normal 5:30 PM cutoff time on Thursday,
December 30, 2010 will be processed and dated for Monday, January 3, 2011. All files
and certifications received after the normal cutoff time on Thursday, December 30, 2010
will be processed on Monday, January 3, 2011 using the payment date of Tuesday
January 4, 2011.

All Fedwire Payments, also known as Same Day Payment Request in SPS, received prior
to the normal cutoff time of 5:30 PM for domestic payments and 4:30 PM for
international payments on Thursday, December 30, 2010 will be processed for that day.
No payments will be issued on the observed holiday, Friday, December 31, 2010. Normal
processing will resume on Monday, January 3, 2011.

Please take these timeframes into careful consideration as you plan your payment activity
throughout this holiday season. We also would like to take the time to wish all of you a
very happy and safe holiday season and look forward to working with you in 2011.


If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please direct all inquiries to Mr.
Philip J. Tropea, Manager, Electronic Operations Branch. Mr. Tropea can be reached at
215-516-8067. As always, the Philadelphia Financial Center SPS Help Desk will also be
available to assist you. The SPS Help Desk number is 215-516-8034.

Sincerely,

Le Leben

Elizabeth A. Belinsky
Regional Director
Philadelphia Financial Center
# Supplement (Web)

Below is a list of supplemental changes to the Admitted Reinsurer listing published Oct 1, 2023. When reviewing the original Admitted Reinsurer listing, the below changes should be considered in order to view the most up to date changes. Please note that only the action changes are  populated for the applicable company. All other elements in grey remain consistent with the original listing.

# Legend
EXHIBIT 13.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with this Second Amendment to Annual Report for Fiscal 2011 Ended August 31, 2011 of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd., company organized under the British Columbia Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Stephen Pearce Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer   Date: August 10, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2302

In re: GREGORY GREEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (0:16-cv-00846-RBH)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Green, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Green petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that 

the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. He seeks an order from this court 

directing the district court to act. We conclude that the present 

record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. 

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny 

the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# July 2023
Case Mo. 8,379.

#### The LION.

[The case reported under above title in 1 Spr. 40, is tlie same as Case No. 2,786.]
# C_2016454EN.01001402.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/14

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16)

(Joined Cases C-91/16 and C-120/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Default interest rate - Application of the remunerative interest rate - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 454/27)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Caixabank SA (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-120/16)

Defendants: Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16)

Operative part of the order

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Court of First Instance No 60, Madrid, Spain), by decisions of 8 February 2016 (Case C-91/16) and of 18 February 2016 (Case C-120/16), are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---
# C_2017437EN.01002902.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)

(Case T-754/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a silhouette in the shape of a discontinuous ellipse - Prior EU figurative mark representing an ellipse - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 437/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and V. Rodríguez Pombo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2608/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Oakley and Xuebo Ye.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2608/2015-4) insofar as it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition inasmuch as it is based on the ground set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2608/2015-4) insofar as it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition inasmuch as it is based on the ground set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark);

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---
Before the First Division,

June 26, 1943

No. 48434.

#### Protests 53239-K, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 64054.

protest 59/19149 (New York).

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the record disclosed that the full amount of duty due had not been paid at the time of protest. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution was denied, and the protest was dismissed *sua sponte*for lack of prosecution.