alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. AMOS JUNIOR SCOTT, a/k/a Crazy , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , Chief District Judge. ( 1:00

- cr - 00069

- MR

- 5 )

Submitted : March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Amos Junior Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Amos Junior Scott, a federal prisoner serving a life sentence, appeals the district court’s orders denying Scott’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release , and denying reconsideration. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretio n. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
In the appealed

- from orders, the district court assumed the arguments advanced by Scott satisfied the “extraordinary and compelling” standard under § 3582(c)( 1)(A)(i) and proceeded to weigh the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court ultimately found, though, that the § 3553(a) factors did not countenance the grant of relief in this case. Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s analysis. Id . at 331

- 32 (holding that, even if extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist, courts may deny compassionate release if § 3553(a) factors counsel against reduction) . We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Sc ott , No. 1:00

- cr - 00069

- MR

- 5 (W.D.N.C. July 26, 2021 & Oct. 26, 2021). We deny Scott’s motion to appoint counsel . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Olga Wanisch, an Infant, by Anton Wanisch, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Otto W. Wuertz, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March, 1913.)

Infants — plea of infancy — chattel mortgage to secure purchase price of piano.

.The plea of infancy may he used as a shield hut not as a sword.

Where the reasonable value of the use of a piano during a period of over three years after its purchase by an infant exceeds the amount paid on account of the purchase price, the complaint, in an action to recover the amount paid to defendant under the terms of a chattel mortgage given by plaintiff to secure the purchase price of the instrument, will be dismissed.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of the Bronx, second district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

C. Bertram Plante, for appellant.

Leo B. Lawlor, for respondent.

Seabury, J.

Plaintiff, an infant, sues to recover money paid to the defendant under the terms of a chattel mortgage given by plaintiff to defendant to secure the payment of $250', the amount of the purchase price of a piano sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. The money paid by plaintiff amounted to $165, which is the sum which the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action. The evidence shows that the plaintiff used the piano for three arid one-half years after it was delivered to her, and that the reasonable value of the use of the piano during that time is in excess of the amount which the plaintiff paid on account of the purchase price. There is also evidence to show that the piano had materially depreciated in value, and that the plaintiff still retains the possession of the piano, although her lawyer wrote to the defendant offering to return it if the latter would repay to the plaintiff the sum of $165. Under the circumstances disclosed, the complaint should *611have been dismissed. Rice v. Butler, 160 N. Y. 578; Gray v. Lessington, 2 Bosw. 257; Bartholomew v. Finnemore, 17 Barb. 428; 2 Kent’s Comm. 240. The only ground upon which the plaintiff asserts her claim is the privilege of infancy. This privilege, however, is to be used as a shield and not as a sword, and, as the plaintiff has received the benefit of the contract which she now seeks to repudiate, she must account for the benefit or return its equivalent. Rice v. Butler, *supra,.*She has not done either of these things, and, therefore, she is not entitled to retain the judgment awarded her by the court below. The case of International Text Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, upon which the respondent relies and upon which the learned court below seems to have rendered judgment in her favor, is distinguishable from the case at bar in several material respects, and especially in the fact that in that case the infant was sued to recover the balance due under an unexecuted contract, and the court held that the defendant might plead infancy as a defense.

Gerard and Bijur, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismised, with costs.
#### Robertsteen W. LOVE v. CITY OF JACKSON and Ethel Johnson Tyler.

No. 46246.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 24, 1971.

E. Grant Tharpe, Jackson, for appellant.

Wilkins *&*Ellington, Jackson, for appel-lee.

SMITH, Justice:

This is a rezoning case. Robertsteen W. Love, owning property within 160 feet of the property here involved, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County which affirmed the action of the Council of the City of Jackson rezoning property belonging to Ethel Johnson Tyler from residential to A-l commercial.

Acting on a petition so requesting filed by Ethel Johnson Tyler on March 14, 1969, the City Council had, on August 12, 1969, adopted an ordinance rezoning her property from residential to A-l commercial. From that action, objector Love appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. On October 17, 1969, that court entered a final judgment reversing the City Council and setting aside the rezoning of the property. There was no appeal by Ethel Johnson Tyler or anyone else from that judgment. Instead, she sought to begin the proceedings all over again.

On November 17, 1969, she filed a second petition again requesting the City Council to rezone the property from residential to A-l commercial.

After various delays, on March 3, 1970, the City Council adopted an ordinance again granting the petitioner’s request to rezone the subject property from residential to A-l commercial. From that action, Love again appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. This time, on July 13, 1970, the court affirmed the judgment, stating in the judgment that the court was of the opinion that the action of the Council had not been “arbitrary and capricious.” It is from this second judgment (neither Ethel Johnson Tyler nor anyone else having appealed from the first judgment) that Love appeals.

The case is controlled by principles laid down in City of Jackson v. Holliday, 246 Miss. 412, 149 So.2d 525 (1963). The record before us shows that the first and second proceedings involved the identical parties, subject matter and issues. Moreover, it does not reflect that there had *634been any material “change in land use in the immediate vicinity” since the date of the prior hearing.

Under the circumstances, the judgment' entered by the circuit court on the first appeal was conclusive upon the parties for reasons discussed in detail in City of Jackson v. Holliday, *supra.*The judgment appealed from is reversed and judgment is entered here for appellant setting aside the rezoning of the property from residential to A-l commercial.

Reversed and judgment here for appellant.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and ROBERTSON, JJ„ concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie GREEN.

No. 60493-A.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Patrick D. McArdle, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, Hugh P. Lambert, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Lindsay Larson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TATE and CALOGERO, JJ.,

dissent. Under the circumstances, where the accused was not arrested until seven months after the incident for an offense he did not know at the time would be prosecuted, the accused was entitled upon his request to examine the police reports made contemporaneously with the incident.
#### Mark E. WADDOUPS v. CLARK, U. S. Marshal for Southern District of California.

No. 8438.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 22, 1937.

David H. Cannon, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered appeal dismissed, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly; mandate forthwith.
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 the Annual Report of Auburn National
Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Hedges, Controller and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 19, 2009                                     
|                                                          
|/s/ David A. Hedges                                       
|David A. Hedges VP, Controller and Chief Financial
Officer
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
1150 Chariwell Caniage Way S 

East Lansing. MI 4SS23 

l-cbruai-y 7, 2012 

Docket Managcincnl Facilily 

U.S. Depl. ofTransporiaiion 

Docket No. r.AA-2012-00S9 

1200Nc\v Jersey Ave. Sfi 

West Building Gland l-loor. Room W-120140 

Washinmon. DC 20590 

x'-ARTMtNTOF 

•RAMSPORiATIOM 

•'nKn'OPFRATiONS 

m i FtC !E5 3 

RI:: Sun Country Slot I:.\cmption Docket No. FAA-2012-00S9 

To Whom II Mav Concern: 

Sun Country currently operates daily non-stop tliglUs from Lansing. Michigan, lo 

Washington's Reagan Airport and back. The llighls arc currently set up to allow 

individuals to actually perlbrm work activities on the day of the (light during a normal 

work day. Operating in Lansing for just the past ten months, 48,000 passengers have 

flown this route and the demand lor the service has increased signillcantly. This service 

provides our government officials with the ability lo complete tasks and work in a very 

cfUcient manner in either location. In addition, the service allows academics and other 

professionals from Michigan State University to meet with U.S. government agencies in a 

timely manner without signillcantly impacting classroom schedules and research 

activities. Michigan Slate University is one of the 10 largest universities in the countrV; 

as well as having one of the largest international student bodies in the U.S. Being able to 

interact in a timely manner with Washington. DC is essential to the functioning of this 

major university. 

Please consider these factors in deciding Sun Country's fate with respect to continuing lo 

offer iheir non-stop ilights to and from Washington DC. Many people, besides nic, love 

this service and wish it to continue. 

Sincerely. .. 

<^i::^-

(P'^J^^^^ ^ Pi^^ 

Lind a Kohl . Ph.D -

i;-"v;,.: \\i:y.-•••'.'. * i;q "=<; qc;;j.;?u<" i«>'. • ^^ "- . - ' ' . .••"•.:';:. ;;^;i(_ : :•;•-?•'-• i u r -j . ••;• '•. 

-.•.T : I ::'. • ^i.'Gi.:r,.' ' •; ;"':.i^!;;'" i '..:,: . ..• : ; " . : : •' ; •. •" •'' • -:-• ' •••••!•'•' " 

• -• . • 1 ;':;•; • . : •) • !' \ " i •'•-. . . \ ." • • ' . " . • ' " '•'•','• ' • • • '- '
260 La. 694

#### The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ABBEVILLE v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 52110.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1972.

In re: The First National Bank of Abbe-ville applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ denied: No error of law.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The condition allegedly part of the instrument is not clearly set forth, if a condition is in fact a part of the instrument.
# C_2022237EN.01002302.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/23

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-351/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua

(Case C-761/21 P)

(2022/C 237/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Raisioaqua Oy

By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH should bear its own costs.

---
NUMBER 13-16-00629-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

THERESA DELGADO-GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

MAX MONEY ENTERPRISES, INC., 

DBA EZMAX LOANS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court 

of De Witt County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras,1 and Longoria 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant’s brief in the above cause was due on December 29, 2016. On

January 4, 2017, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely 

 

1 Justice Dori Contreras, formerly Dori Contreras Garza. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 45.101 et seq. (West, 

Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 
2

filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of 

this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not 

significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response 

has been received from appellant. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain the failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file the brief, or file the brief. Accordingly, appellee’s 

motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

2nd day of February, 2017.
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Elsa VEGA, Individually, and Elsa Vega, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nobel Vega, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 73-244.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# Official Journal C 127/25 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 127 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4825 May 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 127

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4825 May 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Acts adopted pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union |
| 2005/C 127/1 | Common Military List of the European Union (equipment covered by the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports) adopted by the Council on 25 April 2005 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Acts adopted pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union

2005/C 127/1

Common Military List of the European Union (equipment covered by the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports) adopted by the Council on 25 April 2005

1

---

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

EN
# C_2023338EN.01001702.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 July 2023 — Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara v Commission

(Case T-244/21) (1)

(Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances - Installations producing a product which is not covered by a product benchmark - No direct substitutability between the products - Rejection of data relating to the free allocation of allowances concerning those installations - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Duty of diligence - International obligations and commitments of the European Union - Plea of illegality)

(2023/C 338/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB (Luleå, Sweden) (represented by: A. Bryngelsson, F. Sjövall and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and B. De Meester, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Article 1(3) of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355 of 25 February 2021 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 221).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-148442, and No. 333-149753 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-49837, No. 333-44436, No. 333-101962, and No. 333-153079 on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 22, 2009, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc., and the effectiveness of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. for the year ended March 27, 2009. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP San Jose, California
May 22, 2009
No. 10896.

#### Downs *v.*Miller et al., Commissioners, et al.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Ross county.

*Mr. John P. Phillips*and *Mr. James I.*Boulger, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Elijah Cutright; Mr. Silas F. Garrett*and *Mr. Peter J.*Blosser, for defendants in error.

Judgment of the circuit court vacated and cause remanded to that court with instructions to pass upon the assignments of error.

Summers, Davis, Si-iaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
| Date:  |            April 23,      2008            | By:    | /s/      RICHARD E. GAETZ       |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                                      |   | Richard      E. Gaetz           |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   | President      and              |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   | Chief      Executive Officer    |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   |                            |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   |                            |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   |                            |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      | By:    | /s/      SEAN P. WASHCHUK       |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   | Sean      P. Washchuk           |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   | Vice      President Finance and |   |
|   |                                                                                                                      |   | Chief      Financial Officer    |   |