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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6639

CHARLES DELAND JACKSON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-01157-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Deland Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary 

Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Deland Jackson, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We deny all of Jackson’s pending motions and we 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# C_2018301EN.01001701.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Infohos v Belgische Staat

(Case C-400/18)

(2018/C 301/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Infohos

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 13.A(1)(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, now Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006, be interpreted as permitting Member States to attach an exclusivity condition to the exemption provided for therein, whereby an independent group which also supplies services to non-members is also liable in full to VAT for the services supplied to its members?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lena M. Call, Deceased.

Surrogate’s "Court, Jefferson County,

July 15, 1970.

*752
      *Fuller, Giles, Maloney, Marsh <3 Goodwin (Wilfreda B. Stone*of counsel), for petitioner. *Stanford H. Waite,*guardian ad litem for Dale Call, an infant.

Leon Sohwerzmann, Jr., J.

The question here presented arises rather frequently. The decedent entered into a contract to sell certain real property which she had specifically devised in a previously executed will. While the contract was still in an executory state, and before the contract purchasers were by its terms obliged to complete payment thereunder, the decedent died. Does the specific devisee succeed to the decedent’s interest under the contract?

EPTL 3-4.2 (formerly Decedent Estate Law, § 37) makes it clear that he does. It expressly provides that: ‘ ‘ An agreement made by a testator to convey any property does not revoke a prior testamentary disposition.of such property; but such property passes under the will to the beneficiaries, subject to whatever rights were created by such agreement.” The reference therein to ‘1 property ’ ’ embraces both real and prsonal property by statutory definition (EPTL 1-2.15).

This statutory principle, that an executory agreement to sell property which has been specifically given under a previously executed will does not work an ademption or revocation of the gift, has long been a part of the law of this State (R. S. pt. 2, ch. 6, tit. 1, art. 3, § 45); and it has been consistently observed down through the years. *(Wagstaff*v. *Marcy,*25 Misc. 121 [1898]; *Van Tassel*v. *Burger,*119 App. Div. 509 [1907]; *Matter of Prentice,*134 Misc. 343 [1929]; *Matter of Knappen,*125 N. Y. S. 2d 194 [1953]. See, also, *Matter of De Stuers,*199 Misc. 777, 782-783; *Gaines*v. *Winthrop, 2*Edw. Ch. 571; *McCarty*v. *Myers,*5 Hun 83.)

The alternate contention of the petitioner, that the decedent evidenced an intent to revoke the devise in a subsequent codicil, is untenable. In that instrument, the decedent carefully delineated and quoted the precise language in her will that she desired to change. To attempt to read into such a specifically designated change as this the implied intent to alter the meaning of an independent sentence following the portion changed, would be to violate the most basic principles of testamentary construction.
# C_2018190EN.01001301.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the District Court for Prague 8 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Libuše Králová v Primera Air Scandinavia

(Case C-215/18)

(2018/C 190/17)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

District Court for Prague 8

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Libuše Králová

Applicant:

Defendant: Primera Air Scandinavia

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Did a contractual relationship exist between the applicant and the defendant for the purposes of Article 5(1) of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, even though no contract had been concluded between the applicant and the defendant and the flight was part of a package of services provided on the basis of a contract between the applicant and a third party (travel agency)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did a contractual relationship exist between the applicant and the defendant for the purposes of Article 5(1) of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, even though no contract had been concluded between the applicant and the defendant and the flight was part of a package of services provided on the basis of a contract between the applicant and a third party (travel agency)?

1

| 2. | Can that relationship be qualified as a consumer relationship in accordance with Section 4, Article 15 to Article 17 of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can that relationship be qualified as a consumer relationship in accordance with Section 4, Article 15 to Article 17 of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

| 3. | Does the defendant have legal capacity to be sued in an action seeking satisfaction of the claims arising from Regulation [(EC)] No 261/2004 [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 11 February 2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the defendant have legal capacity to be sued in an action seeking satisfaction of the claims arising from Regulation [(EC)] No 261/2004 [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 11 February 2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2019328EN.01004602.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-95/18) (1)

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Complaint - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of fact)

(2019/C 328/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by S. Seyr and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 1 July 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 275 984.23 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, the debit note of 5 July 2016 relating thereto, and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 23 October 2017 confirming the decision of the Quaestors of 14 March 2017 rejecting the complaint directed against the decision of 1 July 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
22958

#### State v. Ing

Affirmed
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Phillip L. Fridley, Defendant.

Justice Court, Town of Geneseo, Livingston County,

March 12, 1971.

*J. Robert Houston, District Attorney (Thomas J. Reynolds*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Raymond L. Sciarrino*for defendant.

Jon H. Porter, J.

On August 7, 1970, the defendant was issued a uniform traffic ticket for speeding in violation of subdivision (b) of section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. The ticket directed the defendant to appear in the Town Court, Town of Geneseo, 70 Genesee Street, Geneseo, New York, on the 14th day of August. 1970 *700at 3:30 p.m. The Town Court in Geneseo, New York, is held at 70 Main Street, there is no “ Genesee Street ” in the Town of Geneseo. Prior to the return date, the error was corrected on motion of the arresting officer.

On October 2, 1970, the defendant appeared with his attorney before Hon. Mark P. Welch, Town Justice, of the Town of Geneseo, at 70 Main Street, Geneseo, New York. A motion for a dismissal by reason of the above defect was denied, and the matter was adjourned on consent for a trial before this court at a convenient time. On November 10, 1970, the parties appeared before this court and at this time the said motion was renewed and a second motion for dismissal was made by reason of the fact that the stenographer engaged to record the proceedings was not present.

The defendant urges a dismissal citing *Matter of Abbott*v. *Rose*(40 Misc 2d 64) involving the failure of a Justice to appear upon the return date. Sections 147-c and 147-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure set forth the minimum requirements and the form to be used for the simplified traffic information; only the names of the parties and the .name of the court must be set forth. The ticket conferred no jurisdiction on the court, it was merely an invitation to appear, “ The Simplified Traffic Information cannot itself furnish a basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or procure defendant’s appearance before the court.” *(People*v. *Boback,*23 N Y 2d 189, 195). A uniform traffic ticket “ is a convenience to the motorist to permit him at his option to avoid the embarrassment and inconvenience of being arrested and forthwith taken before the nearest Magistrate.” *(Matter of Coville*v. *Bennett,*57 Misc 2d 838, 839). The error was inconsequential and the defendant was not prejudiced thereby.

There is no statutory requirement that a stenographer be present at a trial for a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The court was therefore under no duty to provide a stenographer.

Both motions are hereby denied.
# C_2019230EN.01004401.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-465/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1358/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
# C_2019164EN.01000201.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/2

---

Appeal brought on 7 November 2018 by Hungary Restaurant Company Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Hungary Restaurant Company Kft.) and Evolution Gaming Advisory Kft. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 12 October 2018 in Case T-416/18, Hungary Restaurant Company Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Hungary Restaurant Company Kft.) and Evolution Gaming Advisory Kft. v European Commission

(Case C-700/18 P)

(2019/C 164/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Hungary Restaurant Company Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Hungary Restaurant Company Kft.), Evolution Gaming Advisory Kft. (represented by: P. Ruth, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 14 March 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 51 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 51

 Honoring the life, accomplishments, and legacy of Louis Zamperini and 
                 expressing condolences on his passing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2015

 Mr. Reed (for himself and Ms. Maxine Waters of California) submitted 
   the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Honoring the life, accomplishments, and legacy of Louis Zamperini and 
                 expressing condolences on his passing.

Whereas Louis Silvie ``Lou'' Zamperini was born on January 26, 1917, to Anthony 
        and Louise Zamperini, in Olean, New York;
Whereas Louis Zamperini represented the United States in the 1936 Olympics in 
        Berlin as a distance runner;
Whereas Louis Zamperini graduated from the University of Southern California in 
        1940 and enlisted in the United States Army Air Corps in 1941, earning 
        the rank of lieutenant;
Whereas in May 1943, Louis Zamperini's B-24 bomber malfunctioned and crashed 
        during a search-and-rescue mission over the Pacific Ocean, leaving him 
        and 2 other individuals stranded;
Whereas Louis Zamperini survived for 47 days adrift in a life raft with Second 
        Lieutenant Russell Phillips before being captured by Japanese forces and 
        placed in a prisoner of war camp;
Whereas for more than 2 years, during his imprisonment, Louis Zamperini endured 
        brutal treatment and forced labor with courage and resilience;
Whereas upon the conclusion of World War II, Louis Zamperini was released from 
        the prisoner of war camp in September 1945;
Whereas Louis Zamperini was promoted to captain and awarded multiple 
        distinguishing military honors, including the Purple Heart, the 
        Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Prisoner of War Medal;
Whereas Louis Zamperini was given the honor of carrying the Olympic flame in 
        1984, 1996, and 1998;
Whereas in the years after World War II, Louis Zamperini traveled as an 
        inspirational public speaker, using his experiences to inspire a message 
        of forgiveness;
Whereas the airport in Torrance, California, was named ``Zamperini Field'' in 
        honor of Louis Zamperini; and
Whereas Louis Zamperini leaves a legacy as a national hero and an inspiration to 
        future generations: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors the life, accomplishments, and legacy of Louis 
        Zamperini; and
            (2) extends heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the 
        family of Louis Zamperini.
                                 <all>
```
December 28, 1998

21481

#### State v. Hong

Affirmed
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 24.01
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

        KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Joel J. Kocher and Allen L. Shulman, and
each of them, his lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of
substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign any and all amendments to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Interland, Inc. for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003 and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto and all documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granted unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents or any of them, or his or their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Signature                                Title                                  Date
---------                                -----                                  ----
<S>                                    <C>                                   <C>
/s/ JOHN B. BALOUSEK
-----------------------------
JOHN B. BALOUSEK                         DIRECTOR                               NOVEMBER 25, 2003


/s/ DR. JOHN PATRICK CRECINE
-----------------------------
DR. JOHN PATRICK CRECINE                 DIRECTOR                               NOVEMBER 25, 2003

/s/ ROBERT LEE
-----------------------------
ROBERT LEE                               DIRECTOR                               NOVEMBER 25, 2003

/s/ EDWARD L. SHAPIRO
-----------------------------
EDWARD L. SHAPIRO                        DIRECTOR                               NOVEMBER 25, 2003

/s/ ROBERT T. SLEZAK
-----------------------------
ROBERT T. SLEZAK                         DIRECTOR                               NOVEMBER 25, 2003
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. (ET).

# PLACE: 

                        The meeting will be held in Auditorium LL-002 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 and will be simultaneously webcast on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# STATUS: 

                        This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to the standards applicable to covered clearing agencies for U.S. Treasury securities regarding their membership requirements and risk management and whether to adopt amendments to the broker-dealer customer protection rule regarding margin held at covered clearing agencies for U.S. Treasury securities.

2. The Commission will consider whether to approve the 2024 Final Budget and Accounting Support Fee for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact                               ( print page 85937)                            Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.                    

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: December 6, 2023.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-27174 Filed 12-7-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P