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

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**NEIGHBOR'S FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT**

**UNION CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,389.27; $1,659.00 US CURRENCY;** 
**RUGER SUPERHAWK.44 MAGNUM, S/N 82-85672; REMINGTON 788, S/N** 
**6004206; INTRATEC TEC 9 W/MAGAZINE, S/N B6404558;** **WINCHESTER 9422, S/N F380992; MAK**

**90 SPORTER W/HIGH CAPACITY DRUM**
**MAGAZINE, S/N 9345534 AND FLITE KING 20 GAUGE, S/N K-200,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 226 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: StarNet Insurance Company v. RiceTec, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00536-CV

Trial court case number: 94416-CV

Trial court: 239th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas

StarNet Insurance Company filed a petition for permissive appeal of the 

interlocutory “Order granting Plaintiff RiceTec, Inc.’s Amended Traditional Motion for 

Summary Judgment on the Duty to Defend and denying StarNet’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment on the Duty to Defend.” TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a). This Court’s Order granted 

StarNet’s unopposed motion to extend the time to file its petition and requested a response. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(d), (f), (j). Ricetec filed a response stating that it is unopposed to 

the petition and, if granted, it will file a brief on the merits. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(f).

The trial court’s interlocutory order identified a controlling question of law that may 

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation and granted permission to 

appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (West 2014); see also TEX.

R. CIV. P. 168. Accordingly, after reviewing the petition, the Court GRANTS the petition. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e), (j), (k). StarNet is deemed to have filed a notice of appeal as 

of the date of this Order, this appeal is governed by the rules for accelerated appeals, and a 

separate notice of appeal need not be filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 28.3(k). The 

appellate records are due within 10 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P.

35.1(b). The Clerk of this Court is instructed to file a copy of this order with the district

clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(k).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes_______

 x Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, Landau.

Date: __March 14, 2019____
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-521
In Re: CHARLES EVANS, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-56-BR) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Evans, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Evans filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the district court to dispose of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Law. Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). Although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief because the district court in the Western Districtof North Carolina has disposed of the case. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is moot. Additionally, we deny Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2014015EN.01001501.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua)

(Case T-410/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua - Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER - Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/20

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Németh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (Whitestone, United States of America) (represented by: S. Malynicz, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 997/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and Vitaminaqua Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                                                                    State of
                                                                                                  Incorporation
                                                                                  Percent of           or
                   Parent                                Subsidiary               Ownership       Organization
                   ------                                ----------               ---------       ------------

<S>                                            <C>                                   <C>             <C>
Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.                     Hudson River Bank & Trust             100%            Delaware
                                               Company

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company              Hudson City Associates, Inc.          100%            New York


Hudson River Bank & Trust Company              Hudson River Mortgage                 100%            New York
                                               Corporation

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company              Hudson River Funding Corp.           99.9%            New York


Hudson River Bank & Trust Company              Hudson City Centre, Inc.              100%            New York
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2374

GEROD STUKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AETNA INSULATED WIRE COMPANY; HOWARD JACKSON;

SAM KIMBALL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-1247-2)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luther Cornelius Edmonds, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant.

James P. Naughton, Sharon S. Goodwyn, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk,

Virginia; Thomas G. Servodidio, DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerod Stukes appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his suit alleging constructive

discharge, disparate discipline, and unlawful denial of promotion

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994). On appeal, Stukes challenges only the

district court's disposition of his claims of discriminatory denial

of promotion. Finding no error, we affirm.

Stukes claims that he was discriminatorily denied a promotion

on sixteen occasions. We find that eight of the instances of

alleged discrimination are barred from consideration because Stukes

failed to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") within 300 days of the discriminatory conduct. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994). Three of the allegations of discriminatory denial of promotion are meritless because Stukes was no

longer an employee when these positions were filled. Finally, we

find Stukes's remaining claims of discriminatory failure to promote

meritless because Stukes failed to rebut Defendants' legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting him, which included

unacceptable attendance ratings and multiple disciplinary warnings.

See Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.

1991). 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
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-70870, 333-47288, 333-108573, 333-111878, 333-111880 and
333-118234) and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-89369, 333-37400, 333-40430, 333-42974,
333-43996, 333-127989, 333-117068, 333-111543, and 333-137314) of Internap
Network Services Corporation of our report dated March 28, 2008 relating to the
financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
10-K.







/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Atlanta,
Georgia


March 28,
2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6216
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-6673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, a/k/a Jerome Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith, a/k/a Bobby Seals, a/k/a Bobby Seal, a/k/a Cedric Ellison, a/k/a Fretral McRae, a/k/a Chreshan Allen, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:00-CR-75-F; 7:03-CV-17-F) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006- 2 - Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 See United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
2 See Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 (1989). - 3 - PER CURIAM: Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and his motions for application of Booker 1and Teague , 2 to correct judgment, for reconsideration, and to recall the mandate (Appeal No. 06-6216), as well as his “place holder” motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his “place holder motion.” (Appeal No. 06-6673). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the3 To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. SeeMuth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). - 4 - appeal. 3 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-55681) pertaining to the Genesis Direct, Inc. 1997 Long-Term
Incentive Plan and the Genesis Direct, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
our report dated July 9, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Genesis Direct, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended March 27, 1999

Hackensack, New Jersey
July 9, 1999

                                         Ernst & Young LLP
#### Bailey, Green & Elger, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6473.

Entry No. 723247, etc.

Invoices dated York, England, September 28, 1941, etc.

Certified October 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 8, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 29, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Eugene F. Blauvelt*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statements No. 33-21704, No. 33-24096, No. 33-37300, No. 33-65104, No. 33-56717, No. 333-42903, No. 333-59811, No. 333-61214, and No. 333-117850 on Form S-8 and No. 333-47909 on Form S-3
of our report dated February 28, 2008 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of three new accounting standards), relating to the consolidated financial statements of The
McClatchy Company, and the effectiveness of The McClatchy Companys internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The McClatchy Company for the year ended December 30, 2007.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Sacramento, California   
|February 28, 2008
# C_2013189EN.01002103.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Rocket Dog Brands LLC v OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)

(Case T-231/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark JULIUS K9 - Earlier Community figurative marks K9 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Hayward, United-States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 1124/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rocket Dog Brands LLC and Julius-K9 bt.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Rocket Dog Brands LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rocket Dog Brands LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
 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
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, to which
this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Kenneth HahnKenneth HahnChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date: February 11, 2011
(V. D. 76)

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 847585, etc.

(Decided April 9, 1958)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by virtue of judgments issued by the second division of this court in the cases of *Keuffel*& *Esser Co.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 474, Abstract 60661, and *id.*v. *id.,*38 Cust. Ct. 475, Abstract 60662, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reap-praisement, pursuant to the provisions of title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d).

The parties to this proceeding have stipulated and agreed as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise consists of instruments and eases which were held by the Court in Abstracts 60661 and 60662 to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. That the market value or the price of the instruments and cases herein at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was as set forth below.

> [Statistical listing of market values or prices was here set forth.]

> 3. That there was no higher foreign value.

> 4. That the instant case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*637Upon the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the drawing and mathematical instruments and cases therefor covered by the remands of protests enumerated in the schedule, attached to and forming part of this decision, and that such value is as shown in paragraph 2 of the above-quoted stipulation.

I further find such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 96-5810.

#### Pulgaron *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2   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 Amendment No. 2 to the Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Johnnie D. Johnson, Chief Financial 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 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 results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Johnnie D. Johnson Johnnie D. Johnson Chief Financial Officer  September 15, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Competitive Technologies and will be retained by Competitive Technologies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 74-763.

#### Grossman *v.*Striepeke, Sheriff.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014292EN.01003301.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Euroscript — Polska v European Parliament

(Case T-48/12) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Supply of translation services into Polish - Decision amending the decision to place the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers - Award of the main framework contract to another tenderer - Request for re-evaluation - Time-limit - Suspension of procedure - Transparency - Equal treatment))

2014/C 292/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Daire and P. Biström, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2011 to classify the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers and to award it the main contract under public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56-090361), and, in the alternative, annulment of that public procurement procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2911 classifying Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. in first place on the list of successful tenderes and awarding it the main contract under the public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56 090361. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2911 classifying Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. in first place on the list of successful tenderes and awarding it the main contract under the public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56 090361.

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14 April 2012.

1

---
No. 50747.

#### Protests 44788-K/89818, etc., of Judson-Sheldon Corp., et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.