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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3106

MICHAEL S. SOFIDIYA, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-527-A)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Sofidiya, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Theresa Carroll

Buchanan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his complaint against his former employer brought pursuant to Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994), and the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1996). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Sofidiya v. Runyon, No. CA-95-527-A (E.D. Va. Oct.

27, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel 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
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Land Grant College
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Allyn Cox

EverGreene Painting Studios

Materials
    Oil on Canvas

Year
    1994

Location
      
U.S. Capitol Building
          Cox Corridors

This college building in Kansas was one of the first created under the 1862 Morrill Act, which was meant to ensure higher education for all classes of Americans.About the Cox Corridors MuralsThe first floor of the U.S. Capitol's House wing is elaborately decorated with wall and ceiling murals by artist Allyn Cox. The western north-south corridor, called the Westward Expansion corridor, includes maps and scenes showing the growth of the United States from early exploration through the acquisition of Alaska and Hawaii. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### Richard Dickerhof, Respondent, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant, and Hudson General Corporation, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered on or about April 20, 1990, denying defendant Hudson’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint and the Port Authority’s cross-claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*507In this personal injury action for injuries sustained as a result of a fall in an airport parking lot, the Court properly denied Hudson’s motion for summary judgment based solely upon the claim that it owed no duty to plaintiff. The duty of reasonable care in the performance of a contract is not always owed solely to parties to the contract, but may also inure to the benefit of third parties. *(White v Guarente,*43 NY2d 356.) To the extent Hudson’s motion was limited to this theory, we need not consider arguments, made for the first time on appeal, that plaintiff had failed to establish a triable issue of fact with respect to the claim of negligent performance of the contract. *(Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh,*141 AD2d 272.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of AutoImmune Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that, as of the date of this statement, the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”) and that, to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofthe Company as of and for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2003. 

 

The purpose of this certification is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sabarnes-Oxley Act of 2002. This statement is not“filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Act or any other federal or state law or regulation. 

 

Date: November 13, 2003 

/s/    ROBERT C.BISHOP                            

**Name: Robert C. Bishop**

**Title: Chief Executive Officer**
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00202-CV

IN RE Nasser NAKISSA and Estrella Medical Masters, LTD.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 15, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 7, 2015, relators Nasser Nakissa and Estrella Medical Masters, LTD. filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus with a motion for immediate temporary relief pending a ruling on 

the mandamus petition. The court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus and the motion for immediate temporary relief are denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CI00124, styled Nasser Nakissa and Estrella Medical Masters, LTD. 

v. Laura Felix Cortez, AR Coley, LLC and Coley Mortgage Investments, Inc., pending in the 288th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A. Sakai presiding.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-55,332-02 & WR-55,332-03

EX PARTE MARLON LAMON HOODYE, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR-00-201-A & CR-00-532-A 

 IN THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT FROM HAYS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault of

a public servant and burglaryof a habitation and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each cause. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed

to timely file a notice of appeal. He also alleges that counsel should have challenged the cumulation

orders entered on both judgments.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte
2

Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2004); Ex parte Barley, 842 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). In these circumstances,

additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order

counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court may use

any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make a finding as to whether Applicant waived his right to appeal the

imposition of the cumulation order. The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of

law as to whetherApplicant was denied his right to a meaningful appeal because Applicant’s counsel

failed to timely file a notice of appeal. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: January 11, 2017

Do not publish
# C_2017313EN.01000501.xml

| 21.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/5

---

Corrigendum to consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 202 of 7 June 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 202 of 7 June 2016

(2017/C 313/05)

On page 250, Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Article 49:

for:

for:

‘Article 49

Following the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates in accordance with Article 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Governing Council shall take the necessary measures to ensure that banknotes denominated in currencies with irrevocably fixed exchange rates are exchanged by the national central banks at their respective par values.’,

read:

read:

‘Article 49

Following the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates in accordance with Article 140(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Governing Council shall take the necessary measures to ensure that banknotes denominated in currencies with irrevocably fixed exchange rates are exchanged by the national central banks at their respective par values.’.

---
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply10779Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Robert Thayer (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 31, 2022 - 8:15pmNote the picture of the 'Grotto'  (original Iroquois name 'qwadake dikep', or 'spring on the hill') in the article and the copper pipe on the left side.  For those taking natural pictures of the Grotto, that is something of an anomaly.  For those who have always thought there should be two Summerhouses AND maybe several more like it spread along the Mall,  one wonders if $4.00 worth of copper pipe would move the one in the picture out of sight further to the left.  Otherwise, a very restful and photogenic place in all seasons.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 51222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8851]

International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; 
Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App Sec.  10(a)(2), the Department of State 
announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) 
to take place on October 2, 2014, at the Department of State, 
Washington, DC.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App Sec.  10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined 
that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board 
will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in 
accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to 
provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice 
on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, 
political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects 
of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include 
classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. 
policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, 
nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
    For more information, contact Richard W. Hartman, II, Executive 
Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department 
of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4290.

    Dated: August 19, 2014.
Richard W. Hartman, II,
Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-20408 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
**EXHIBIT
      10.42**














Incentive
      Compensation Plan




The
      Company’s annual incentive compensation plan is intended to assist the Company
      in rewarding and motivating key employees, focuses strongly on Company and
      individual performance, and provides a fully competitive compensation package
      to
      plan participants. As a pay-for-performance plan, cash incentive awards are
      paid
      annually based on the achievement of performance objectives for the year. Under
      the plan, each plan participant is provided a range of potential annual
      incentive awards based on competitive award levels in the marketplace. Actual
      awards paid under the plan are based on the Company’s corporate performance.
      Individual performance is also considered in determining actual award levels,
      but is assessed in a non-formulaic fashion. The incentive compensation plan
      performance objective is earnings per share performance against plan. The
      maximum incentive awards that could be awarded to the Company’s named executive
      officers pursuant to the incentive compensation plan are as follows: chairman
      and chief executive officer - (150% x annual base salary); president and chief
      operating officer - (100% x annual base salary); vice presidents - (60% x annual
      base salary).
# L_2005064EN.01004901.xml

| 10.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/49

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 126/2004

of 24 September 2004

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 99/2004 of 9 July 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 99/2004 of 9 July 2004 (1).

| (2) | Council Regulation (EC) No 1647/2003 of 18 June 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the evaluation of Medicinal Products (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1647/2003 of 18 June 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the evaluation of Medicinal Products (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   The following shall be inserted before the last paragraph of the introductory part of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

‘Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents shall, for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, apply to any documents of the Agency regarding the EFTA States as well.’

2.   The following indent shall be added in point 15g (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32003 R 1647: Council Regulation (EC) No 1647/2003 of 18 June 2003 (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 19).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32003 R 1647: Council Regulation (EC) No 1647/2003 of 18 June 2003 (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 19).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1647/2003/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 25 September 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 24 September 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kjartan JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 376, 23.12.2004, p. 23.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 19.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
JERRY W. HAVENNER,

Appellant,

v.

DEBORA HUTCHINSON,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3429

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 17, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Dan Wilensky, Judge.

Jerry W. Havenner, pro so, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jerry W. Havenner, who is incarcerated, appeals the denial of his 

motion for modification of a repeat violence injunction issued against him. 

Havenner argues that his due process rights were violated when the lower court 

denied his motion after he, through no fault of his own, failed to appear at the 

hearing. We agree and reverse. 
The record before us reflects that Havenner properly brought to the lower 

court’s attention his desire to appear telephonically for the hearing. The lower 

court, in turn, noted on Havenner’s notice of hearing that he was to appear 

telephonically. However, on the date of the hearing, Havenner failed to appear 

telephonically. The lower court then denied his motion.

“An incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has 

brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or 

telephonically.” Butler v. Norton, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D493 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 24, 

2015) (citing Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); (Johnson v. 

Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). When the incarcerated party 

cannot make a personal appearance in a civil matter, the judge should still allow 

the hearing to be held with the incarcerated party having telephonic access to the 

hearing. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.530. 

Here, as in Butler, the party was incarcerated in the Florida Department of 

Corrections, which does not permit a party or anyone else to initiate a call – but 

requires that institutional staff initiate such phone calls. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 

33-602.205(8)(b).

Because, as in Butler, the trial court here failed to issue an order directed to 

the Department of Corrections requiring Appellant to appear telephonically at a 

specified time and date, we reverse the order denying Mr. Havenner’s motion to 

2
dissolve the injunction against repeat violence and remand for further proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CLARK and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR; MAKAR, J., CONCURS, WITH OPINION.

3
MAKAR, J., concurring. 

I agree that reversal is proper, but note that doing so is necessary only because 

appellant filed a notice of appeal before the trial court had the opportunity to grant 

his motion for rehearing, an order that accorded him the full relief he seeks on 

appeal.

4