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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6067

ALBERT C. BURGESS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:16-cv-00410-

GCM) 

Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, 

Cortney Randall, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

 * Burgess filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012). The district court construed the 

petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the 2010 

criminal judgment entered following Burgess’ convictions under 

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (2012). On appeal, Burgess does not dispute 

that his filing challenged the 2010 criminal judgment. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Burgess 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. 61768.

#### Container Stapling Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 311072-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2017144EN.01006203.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

(Case T-173/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/93)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Morris S. Young,
Chief Executive 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
(Section 906), that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

November 13, 2003

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/  Morris S. Young   
| |                        
| | Morris S. Young        
| | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AXT, Inc. and will be
retained by AXT, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
* 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. 02-30121

Summary Calendar

 

JOHNNY L. DUNCAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOB WOOD; NIKE-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

PHIL KNIGHT; NIKE INC.; WIEDEN & KENNEDY LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-3777-S

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

November 19, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny L. Duncan appeals from the summary judgment dismissal

of his suit alleging that the defendants' advertising campaign

using variations of the slogan "I Can" violated his copyright in a

poem that he created in 1986 entitled "I Can." After a de novo

review, we affirm.

The defendants argue that our review is limited to determining

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying
No. 02-30121

-2-

Duncan's purported Rule 60(b) motion. Because Duncan's motion was

filed within ten days of the district court's summary judgment, it

is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G

Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc).

Although Duncan's notice of appeal designated only the denial of

the post-judgment motion, we overlook such technical errors or

mistakes and infer that Duncan intended to appeal the adverse

underlying judgment. See Lockett v. Anderson, 230 F.3d 695, 700

(5th Cir. 2000).

Duncan argues that his summary judgment evidence demonstrated

that the defendants had access to his poem "I Can" because the poem

appeared for several years in a calendar, a book, and a poetry

anthology, all of which Duncan asserts were distributed throughout

the country. He also asserts that his poem and the defendants'

advertisements were substantially similar. We conclude from a

review of the record that Duncan has failed to show more than a

bare possibility that the defendants had access to his work and

that the poem and advertisements are not substantially similar.

See Peel & Co., Inc. v. The Rug Market, 238 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.

2001); Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 584 F.2d 111,

113 (5th Cir. 1978).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2016326EN.01003502.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/35

---

Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-34/16)

(2016/C 326/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to recover the amounts which the applicant allegedly received unduly in respect of education allowance and dependent child allowance and the decisions ending her entitlement to certain allowances.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the new ‘received from other sources’ recovery decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the new ‘received from other sources’ recovery decision;

| — | Annul the ‘end of entitlement’ recovery decision, in so far as it sets the end of the applicant’s entitlement to the education allowance for XX and YY as 1 July 2015 instead of 1 October 2015 and in so far as it sets the end of her entitlement to the household allowance as 1 August 2015 instead of 1 October 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the ‘end of entitlement’ recovery decision, in so far as it sets the end of the applicant’s entitlement to the education allowance for XX and YY as 1 July 2015 instead of 1 October 2015 and in so far as it sets the end of her entitlement to the household allowance as 1 August 2015 instead of 1 October 2015;

| — | Annul, if necessary, the decision rejecting the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, if necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

| — | Order the defendant to pay late-payment interest to the applicant on the amounts irregularly withheld or recovered at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two points, with effect, in respect of each amount, from the date on which it should have been paid to her; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay late-payment interest to the applicant on the amounts irregularly withheld or recovered at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two points, with effect, in respect of each amount, from the date on which it should have been paid to her;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE GILMORE 02-4379

District Court Docket Number

vs.

PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICER CHARLES LAYTON, ETAL

Notice of Appeal Filed 5/14/04

Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s) N/A

Filing Fee:

 Notice of Appeal Paid X Not Paid Seaman

 Docket Fee Paid X Not Paid USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

 Private Attorney

 Defender Association or Federal Public Defender

 Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

 X Motion Granted

 Motion Denied

 Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

 Granted

 Denied

 Pending

CC: JUDGE GILES

 APPEALS CLERK

 USCA

 

Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

Prepared by : 

 LINDA V.JERRY,Deputy Clerk Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 16 Filed 05/14/2004 Page 1 of 2
KEYBOARD()

KEYBOARD()

District Court Docket Number

vs.

KEYBOARD()

Notice of Appeal Filed KEYBOARD()

Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s) KEYBOARD()

KEYBOARD()

KEYBOARD()

Filing Fee:

 Notice of Appeal KEYBOARD() Paid KEYBOARD() Not Paid KEYBOARD() Seaman

 Docket Fee KEYBOARD() Paid KEYBOARD() Not Paid KEYBOARD() USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

 KEYBOARD() Private Attorney

 KEYBOARD() Defender Association or Federal Public Defender

 KEYBOARD() Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

 KEYBOARD() Motion Granted

 KEYBOARD() Motion Denied

 KEYBOARD() Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

 KEYBOARD() Granted

 KEYBOARD() Denied

 KEYBOARD() Pending

CC: KEYBOARD()

 KEYBOARD()

 KEYBOARD()

 KEYBOARD()

Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

KEYBOARD()

KEYBOARD()

KEYBOARD()

KEYBOARD()

Prepared by : 

 KEYBOARD(),Deputy Clerk Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm

Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 16 Filed 05/14/2004 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1329

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-98-35-R)

Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Paul Turner appeals the district court's orders dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to comply with a prefiling injunction or to pay the filing fee and denying his motion

for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. United

States, No. CA-98-35-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, and Feb. 18, 1998). We

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MLEA, INC., as Successor in : CIVIL ACTION

Interest to ENGINEERED GAS :

SYSTEMS, LLP and MAINE LINE :

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

ATLANTIC RECYCLED RUBBER, INC.:

RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, :

INC., and CASELLA WASTE :

SYSTEMS, INC., :

Defendants. : NO. 02-CV-4393

O R D E R

 

AND NOW, this 21st day of January 2004, in view of the

matters discussed by the parties in conference this date with the

Court, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Pretrial Memorandum is due February 10,

2004.

2. Defendants’ Pretrial Memorandum is due February 18,

2004.

3. Discovery shall close on January 30, 2004.

4. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before

February 10, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

 

_________________________

JAMES McGIRR KELLY, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 17 Filed 01/21/2004 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS Document 262 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS Document 262 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1482 

To provide a permanent easement to the Shishmaref Native Corporation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide a permanent easement to the Shishmaref Native 

Corporation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ANCSA Shishmaref 

5 Emergency Access Easement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHISHMAREF EASEMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), the Sec8 retary of the Interior shall grant the Shishmaref Native 

9 Corporation, a Corporation established under the Alaska 

10 Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1482 IS

1 a perpetual easement of approximately 300 feet that 

2 crosses the Bering Land Bridge National Monument to 

3 permit a surface transportation route between the Village 

4 of Shishmaref and the general area of Ear Mountain, 

5 Alaska. 

6 (b) PROPOSED EASEMENT.—The easement described 

7 in subsection (a) shall be jointly proposed by the 

8 Shishmaref Native Corporation, the City of Shishmaref, 

9 and the Native Village of Shishmaref based on rec10 ommendations made by the State of Alaska. 

11 (c) APPROVAL UNDER ANILCA.—The easement 

12 granted under this section shall be considered to meet all 

13 applicable requirements of title XI of the Alaska National 

14 Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.). 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,166
<PP&E>                                         170,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,119
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,189
<SALES>                                         72,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,079
<CGS>                                           54,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,449
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,449
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Berle M. Schiller 5614 United States Courthouse

 JUDGE Independence Mall West

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

 

 267-299-7620

 

August 30, 2002 

Re: Bari Himes, et al. v. The Home Depot, Inc., et al.

Docket No. 02-cv-2774

Dear Counsel:

Judge Schiller has scheduled the above-referenced case for a Rule 16 conference for

Friday, September 20, 2002 at 11:30 A.M. in his chambers, Room 5614.

Counsel are directed to obtain copies of Judge Schiller’s “Scheduling Policy Statement”

and “Conference Information Report” from the Court’s website at http:www.paed.uscourts.gov. 

You should review the Scheduling Policy Statement before completing the Conference

Information Report. Please bring the completed Conference Information Report with you to the

Rule 16 Conference.

At the close of the conference, you will receive an Order from Judge Schiller that will list

firm dates for the completion of discovery, other pretrial submissions and trial that will be set at

the conference

Very truly yours,

Patricia A. Callahan

Deputy Clerk to

Hon. Berle M. Schiller

(267)299-7621

Case 2:02-cv-02774-BMS Document 13 Filed 08/30/2002 Page 1 of 1
December 26, 2002

 

NOTICE

RE: DAVID FREDERICK v. FAMOUS SMOKE SHOP, INC. - 02-CV-4337

Judge Davis has scheduled the above-referenced case for a Rule 16 conference

in his chambers, Room 5918, on Tuesday, January 7, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.

Counsel are directed to complete the enclosed copy of the Conference Information

Report. Please mail or fax the completed Conference Information Report such that it arrives in

Judge Davis’ Chambers at least three business days prior to the Rule 16 Conference. Further,

counsel are expected to present a completed joint discovery plan pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26 (F).

At the close of the conference, you will receive an Order from Judge Davis that will list

firm dates for the completion of discovery, other pretrial submissions and the trial, if a trial is

required.

Very truly yours,

 

Jessica Whitfield 

Deputy Clerk to

Hon. Legrome D. Davis

(267)299-7651

Copies by mail to: (267)299-5076

R. Volkman, Esq.

Copies by fax to:

D. Russo, Esq.

12/26/02 - JW

Case 2:02-cv-04337-LDD Document 4 Filed 12/26/2002 Page 1 of 1
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

A

CBO

STUDY

OCTOBER 2003

The Economics

of U.S. 

Tort Liability:

A Primer
# C_2016364EN.01001201.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev

(Case C-439/16)

(2016/C 364/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Emil Milev

Question referred

Is a domestic precedent — in particular a binding Opinion of the Varhoven Sad [(Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation; ‘the Supreme Court’)] (delivered after the adoption of Directive 2016/343 (1) of 9 March 2016 but before the time limit for its transposition has passed), pursuant to which the Varhoven Sad [(Supreme Court)], after having established that there is a conflict between Article 5(4) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [(‘the ECHR’)], read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(c) thereof, and national legislation (Article 270(2) of the [Bulgarian] Criminal Procedure Code (Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks)) relating to the issue of whether to take into consideration the reasonable grounds for assuming that an offence was committed (within the context of a procedure for reviewing the extension of a coercive measure of ‘remand in custody’ during the litigation stage of criminal proceedings), grants to the courts dealing with the substance of the case the power to decide whether to comply with the [ECHR] — consistent with Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 of 9 March 2016 and Article 6 thereof (relating to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof within the context of criminal proceedings)?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---