alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T ERL ER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ONNIE B ISB EE; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16981 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-00340-LRHVPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r R obe rt Erle r a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging due proc e s s a nd e qua l prote c tion viola

tions in c onne c tion with his pa role he arings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Huftile v . Mic c i o-Fonse c a , 410 F.3d



# FIL ED SEP 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1136, 1138 (9th C ir. 2005) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii));

Ramire z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th C ir. 2003) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1915A). W e re ve rse and re m and. The distric t c ourt dismisse d Erle r’ s a c tion unde r W i lk inson v . Dotson , 544 U.S. 74 (2005), be c a

use it c onc lude d tha

t Erle r’ s c la im s sound in ha be a s a nd
c ha lle nge the va lidity

of his c onfine m e nt. Howe ve r, be c a use Erle r sought a

ne w pa role he aring a

nd not im m e diate or spe e die r re le a se , suc c e ss in this ac tion would not ne c e ssa

rily de m onstra

te the inva lidity

of Erle r’ s c ontinue d c onfine m e nt or its duration. Se eid. at 81-82 (a llowing proc e d ura l c ha lle nge s to pa

role he arings be c a use the injunc tive and de c la ratory re lie f that pla intiffs sought unde r § 1983

“ w ould not ne c e

ssarily spe ll im

m e diate or spe e die r re le a se ” ); se e also Edw ards v
. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (“ Ordina rily , a pray e r for . . . prospe c tive re lie f [to e nga ge in a

pa rtic u l ar proc e dure ] will not ‘ n e c e ssa rily im ply ’ the inva lidity

of a pre v ious [de c ision] , a

nd so m a y prope rly be brought under § 1983.” ). Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the dism issa l of Erle r’ s a c tion. W e e xpre ss no opinion on the m e rits of Erle r’ s c la im s or his e ntitle m e nt to there lie f sought. In light of our disposition, we do not c onside r Erle r’ s c onte ntions re ga rding the d e nia l of his Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b) m otion for re c onside ration. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.
1 4
- 1 6 9 8 1 2
(Reap. Dec. 8378)

Entry No. 761203.

#### United States *v.*American Type Founders, Inc.

(Decided January 5, 1955)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts' entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 11 shillings per dozen, English currency, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### John C. BREWER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-1383.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 27, 2005.

Richard Paul Cohen, Cohen, Abate & Cohen, L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel, Nora R. Koch, Supervisory Regional Counsel, Brian O’Donnell, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*556PER CURIAM:

John C. Brewer appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits from April 1, 1996, to September 30, 2000. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); *Craig v. Chater,*76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Brewer v. Barnhart,*No. CA-04-12-1 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 8, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 208 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National Citizens’ Crime 

Prevention Campaign. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JULY 28, 2005 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National 

Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign. 

Whereas crime prevention improves the quality of life in every 

community; 

Whereas crime prevention is central to maintaining a sound 

criminal justice system at the national, State, and local 

level and to ensuring safer and more secure communities; 

Whereas 2005 marks the 25th anniversary of the National 

Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, featuring McGruff 

the Crime Dog, conducted by the National Crime Prevention Council; 
2 

SRES 208 ATS 

Whereas McGruff the Crime Dog is an icon, recognized as 

the Nation’s symbol for crime prevention; 

Whereas the National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign 

has inspired and directed millions of citizens to take action, individually and collectively, to reduce crime, drug 

abuse, and the fear of crime; 

Whereas the National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign 

has led a multitude of community organizations, including law enforcement, other State and local agencies, civic 

and community groups, faith-based organizations, 

schools, and businesses, to play a vital role in reducing 

crime and building safer communities; and 

Whereas the National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign 

is a leading example of a campaign conducted by public 

and private individuals and entities on a national, State, 

and local level to improve the quality of life throughout 

the Nation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the 

3 National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, and 

4 commends all individuals and organizations involved 

5 in the campaign for advancing the principles and 

6 practice of effective crime prevention; 

7 (2) asks the people of the United States to join 

8 in the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Na9 tional Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, and of 

10 the campaign’s icon (McGruff the Crime Dog), and 
3 

SRES 208 ATS 

1 of the campaign’s managing organization (National 

2 Crime Prevention Council); and 

3 (3) encourages the National Crime Prevention 

4 Council and the Crime Prevention Coalition of 

5 America to continue to promote, through the Na6 tional Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, indi7 vidual and collective action, in collaboration with law 

8 enforcement and other supporting agencies, to re9 duce crime and build safer communities throughout 

10 the United States. 

Æ
No. 64332.

protests 304792-K, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mei-chandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2018104EN.01002501.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission

(Case T-216/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Health insurance bodies - Capital increase, debt repayment, subsidies and Risk Equalisation Scheme - Decision finding no State aid - Concept of State aid - Concept of undertaking and economic activity - Principle of solidarity - State supervision - Activity that is economic in nature - Competition on quality - Presence of operators seeking to make a profit - Pursuit, use and distribution of profits - Error of law - Error of assessment))

(2018/C 104/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.–J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (Bratislava) (represented by: initially E. Pijnacker Hordijk and A. ter Haar, and subsequently A. ter Haar, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by the Slovak Republic to Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP) (OJ 2015 L 41, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. and by Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. and by Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s.;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Slovakia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Slovakia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

1

---
# C_2015236EN.01003001.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 22 May 2015 — Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan

(Case C-237/15)

(2015/C 236/40)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Applicant:

Defendant: Francis Lanigan

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | What is the effect of a failure to observe the time limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States (2002/584/JHA) (1) read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 15 of the said Framework decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the effect of a failure to observe the time limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States (2002/584/JHA) (1) read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 15 of the said Framework decision?

1

| 2. | Does failure to observe the time limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States (2002/584/JHA) give rise to rights on the part of an individual who has been held in custody pending a decision on his/her surrender for a period in excess of those time periods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does failure to observe the time limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States (2002/584/JHA) give rise to rights on the part of an individual who has been held in custody pending a decision on his/her surrender for a period in excess of those time periods?

---

(1)  OJ L 190, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Exhibit 12



         United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies

        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                            Three Months Ended
                                                 March 31
                                                 --------
                                            2000          1999
                                            ----          ----
                                               (In Millions)
<S>                                         <C>           <C>
Earnings:

   Earnings before income taxes             $ 204         $ 116
   Losses of affiliates                         -             2
   Fixed charges, from below                  251           248
   Undistributed (earnings) losses
     of affiliates                              3           (19)
   Interest capitalized                       (20)          (19)
                                             ----          ----
       Earnings                             $ 438         $ 328
                                             ====          ====

Fixed charges:

   Interest expense                         $ 101         $  95
   Portion of rental expense representative
     of the interest factor                   150           153
                                             ----          ----
       Fixed charges                        $ 251         $ 248
                                             ====          ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges           1.74          1.32
                                             ====          ====

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LARRY A. DROWN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 562, 42 CMR 164

No. 22,900

July 10, 1970

*Lieutenant Donald B. Brant, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Thomas F. Bastow,*JAGC, USNR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

At trial, the accused offered evidence which raised a question as to the legality of the conditions of his pretrial confinement. The law officer ruled the evidence was not “pertinent.” The ruling was erroneous. United States v Nelson, 18 USCMA 177, 39 CMR 177 (1969).

The decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review “for reassessment and approval of a sentence which does not include further confinement at hard labor.” United States v Pringle, 19 USCMA 324, 326, 41 CMR 324 (1970).

Judges FERGUSON and Darden concur.
# C_2017038EN.01000302.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against A, B

(Case C-453/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56 - Place where services are supplied - Concept of ‘similar rights’ - Transfer of greenhouse gas emission allowances))

(2017/C 038/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

A, B

Intervener: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Intervener:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘similar rights’ mentioned in that provision include the greenhouse gas emission allowances defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

1

---
# C_2015178EN.01002502.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/25

---

Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-34/15)

(2015/C 178/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 14 April 2014 of the High Representative of the European Union, Vice-President of the European Commission, to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 14 April 2014 of the High Representative of the European Union, Vice-President of the European Commission, to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS);

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

—

Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
#### Willie Gene RUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James GOMES, Director of Corrections; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-16991.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*778Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Willie Gene Ruff, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

George Dey Prince, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, Barbara N. Sutliffe, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants—Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Willie Gene Ruff appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants deprived him of property without due process of law and interfered with his right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach,*341 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ruffs claim as to whether his due process rights were violated because the prison policy of limiting each prisoner to six cubic feet of personal property is rationally related to a legitimate penological interest. *See Turner v. Safely,*482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ruffs access to courts claim because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that defen*779dants’ requiring him to send out two boxes of legal materials actually hindered his ability to pursue his habeas petition filed more than a year later. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); *Cornett v. Donovan,*51 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.1995) (“The right of access is designed to ensure that a habeas petition or a civil rights complaint of a person in state custody will reach a court for consideration.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2016211EN.01004801.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino)

(Case T-21/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino - Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2012/2013-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu and Franmax UAB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Franmax UAB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Franmax UAB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 C 107, 30.3.2015, p. 32.

---