alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Faris Abdul-Matiyn, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin III, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from a judgment of the *963Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered November 7, 1990 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for, *inter alia,*failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

We agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims about medical treatment and his requests for the return of computer disks allegedly taken from him. He failed to pursue the appropriate grievance procedures *(see,*Correction Law § 139; *Matter of Harris v Coughlin,*157 AD2d 997) and, insofar as the record fails to indicate that petitioner’s claims have been predetermined, he has failed to show that pursuit of administrative remedies would have been futile *(see, Matter of Symmonds v Leonardo,*138 AD2d 810). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1049 

To allow the financing by United States persons of sales of agricultural 

commodities to Cuba. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. UDALL, and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To allow the financing by United States persons of sales 

of agricultural commodities to Cuba. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Export 

5 Expansion Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINANCING OF SALES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMOD7 ITIES TO CUBA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law (other than section 908 of the Trade Sanctions 

10 Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1049 IS

1 7207), as amended by subsection (c)), a person subject 

2 to the jurisdiction of the United States may provide pay3 ment or financing terms for sales of agricultural commod4 ities to Cuba or an individual or entity in Cuba. 

5 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY.—The term 

7 ‘‘agricultural commodity’’ has the meaning given the 

8 term in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 

9 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602). 

10 (2) FINANCING.—The term ‘‘financing’’ in11 cludes any loan or extension of credit. 

12 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 908 of the 

13 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 

14 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207) is amended— 

15 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘AND

16 FINANCING’’; 

17 (2) by striking subsection (b); 

18 (3) in subsection (a)— 

19 (A) by striking ‘‘PROHIBITION’’ and all 

20 that follows through ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not21 withstanding’’ and inserting ‘‘IN GENERAL.— 

22 Notwithstanding’’; and 

23 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 

24 (3) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively, and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1049 IS

1 by moving those subsections, as so redesig2 nated, 2 ems to the left; and 

3 (4) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ each place it 

4 appears and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4335 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4335

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for headstones and 
markers for, and interment in national cemeteries of, deceased spouses 
and dependent children of members of the Armed Forces serving on active 
                     duty, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

  Mr. Correa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for headstones and 
markers for, and interment in national cemeteries of, deceased spouses 
and dependent children of members of the Armed Forces serving on active 
                     duty, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Family Burial Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PROVISION OF HEADSTONES AND 
              MARKERS FOR, AND INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF, 
              SPOUSES AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY.

    (a) Headstones and Markers.--Section 2306(b)(2) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, or the spouse of 
        a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty under 
        conditions other than dishonorable, as shown by a statement 
        from a general court-martial convening authority, at the time 
        of the spouse's death'' after ``veteran''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, or the eligible 
        dependent child of a member of the Armed Forces serving on 
        active duty under conditions other than dishonorable, as shown 
        by a statement from a general court-martial convening 
        authority, at the time of the child's death'' after 
        ``veteran''.
    (b) Interment in National Cemeteries.--Section 2402(a)(5) of such 
title is amended by inserting ``, and the spouse, minor child, and, in 
the discretion of the Secretary, unmarried adult child of a member of 
the Armed Forces serving on active duty under conditions other than 
dishonorable, as shown by a statement from a general court-martial 
convening authority, at the time of the spouse's or child's death'' 
after ``paragraph (7)''.
                                 <all>
```
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Tena Campbell, Senior United States District Judge

for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN O’CONNELL,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

 v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden,

 Respondent – Appellee.

No. 08-16500

D.C. No. 5:01-CV-20863-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2011 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL,** District

Judge. 

Petitioner Kevin O’Connell appeals from the district court’s denial of his

Section 2254 habeas corpus petition, in which he challenged his sentence under the

California three strikes law. Mr. O’Connell argues that his due process rights were

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

violated because he was shackled during the guilt and sentencing phases of the

bifurcated trial proceedings. Mr. O’Connell also asks the Court to expand the

Certificate of Appealability to address a Miranda issue. 

Mr. O’Connell’s request that the Court issue a certificate of appealability on

the Miranda issue is denied. Mr. O’Connell did not make a substantial showing

that the events related to the recorded custodial interrogation resulted in the denial

of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000). 

His appeal of the two certified issues fails on the merits. The sufficiently

developed state court record does not contain any evidence that the jury saw or

knew of Mr. O’Connell’s shackles during the guilt phase. Indeed, Mr. O’Connell’s

trial counsel admitted that a jury instruction regarding physical restraints was not

necessary because the shackles were not visible to the jury. No constitutional error

occurred during the guilt phase. Ghent v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th

Cir. 2002). But even if a constitutional error occurred, the overwhelming evidence

of Mr. O’Connell’s guilt rendered any such error harmless. Cox v. Ayers, 613

F.3d 883, 891 (9th Cir. 2010). 

During the sentencing phase, although the jury clearly saw Mr. O’Connell’s

shackles, any constitutional error was harmless because Mr. O’Connell revealed
3

his shackles only after the presentation of overwhelming evidence (including Mr.

O’Connell’s testimony) that he had three convictions qualifying him for sentencing

under California’s three strikes law. Id.

In sum, Mr. O’Connell failed to show that the “state court’s ruling on the

claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was

an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility

for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786-87

(2011).

AFFIRMED.
December 22, 1999

22311

#### State v. Haili

Affirmed
# C_2020095EN.01002502.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2020 — Hickies v EUIPO (Shape of a shoe lace)

(Case T-573/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a shoe lace - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Protection of a right relating to an earlier design - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2020/C 95/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hickies, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, and S. Petivlasova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2018 (Case R 2693/2017-5), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a shoe lace as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hickies, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hickies, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             COMMENDING VETERANS OF THE KOREAN CONSTABULARY

                                  _____
                                 

                             HON. LEE TERRY

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor veterans of the Korean 
Constabulary for their outstanding sacrifice and service during the 
hard years leading up to the establishment of the Republic of Korea.
  The Korean Constabulary was originally established in 1946 in order 
to provide support to Korean National Police during the unification and 
independence of South Korea. They would eventually serve as the 
Republic of Korea Army in 1948.
  During the years of 1946 and 1948, the Korean Constabulary undertook 
internal security tasks on behalf of the United States Military 
Government in Korea and the people of South Korea, defending their 
fledging country against internal unrest.
  The Korean Constabulary believe they have been treated unfairly due 
to their exclusion from benefits offered under the Republic of Korea's 
Military Pension Act. They have not been granted pension, financial aid 
for healthcare or military awards for their years of distinguished 
service because their years of service before 1950 are unaccounted for 
because the Constabulary was under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of National Defense during the years of 1946 and 1948.
  The Korean Constabulary would like to be honored by the Republic of 
Korea for their heroic service during such an unstable time in the 
country's history.
  Today, I honor all of the Veterans of the Korean Constabulary and 
commend them for their bravery and support to the United States 
Military Government in Korea.

                          ____________________
```
#### In the Matter of Angela D. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused. Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant; Annette S., Respondent.—

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 involving allegations of neglect and abuse, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Tejada, J.), dated December 20, 1989, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the amended petition and returned the children to their mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

These proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 were instituted by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, who alleged that the mother’s twin three-year-old children, Angela and Leonardo, were abused and *245neglected. After the children were temporarily removed from her physical custody, the mother applied pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for their return, pending a determination by the Family Court at a scheduled fact-finding hearing. The Family Court granted the mother’s application, but this court reversed, finding that the mother had not adequately explained the children’s injuries and therefore, they should not be returned to her prior to the fact-finding hearing *(see, Matter of Angela D.,*154 AD2d 567). Upon the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court dismissed the amended petitions for insufficient evidence, and returned the children to their mother.

We find, contrary to the Family Court’s determination, that the petitioner met its burden of establishing neglect with respect to both children by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046; *Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1). However, there is no longer a need for a dispositional hearing, and dismissal is warranted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c).

While this appeal was pending, the mother moved with the children to the State of Maryland and agreed to supervision by the Maryland Department of Social Services, the agency in that State charged with the responsibility for administering child protection services. During oral argument, we were informed by both the attorney representing the petitioner, and the children’s Law Guardian, that the Maryland authorities had been contacted as soon as it was discovered that the mother had removed the children to that State. The petitioner sent all information in its files concerning this case to the Maryland authorities, who made periodic home visits. We have been informed that the home visits continued for a period of approximately 15 months until in or about March 1991 when the Maryland authorities decided to close their file with respect to this case.

Under the circumstances, and notwithstanding the evidence of neglect in the record of the fact-finding hearing, we find that the aid of the New York Family Court "is not required on the record before [us]” (Family Ct Act § 1051 [c]), and dismissal is thus warranted. Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Bennett, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered December 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s inadvertent delay in delivering a requested no adverse inference charge, pursuant to CPL 300.10 (2), deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as no objection was made to the charge on that ground *(see, People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273; *People v Debroux,*133 AD2d 231; *People v Hall,*124 AD2d 336). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Penepent Corporation et al., Respondents, v Richard S. Penepent, Jr., et al., Appellants, and Richard S. Penepent, Sr., et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with same Memorandum as in *Penepent Corp. v Penepent*([appeal No. 1] 175 AD2d 620 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Morton, J. — Costs.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
EXHIBIT 24


                         BRAZAURO RESOURCES CORPORATION


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------



WHEREAS,  Brazauro Resources Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws
of British Columbia, (the "Company"), will file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Act"),  an  Annual  Report  on  Form 10-K ("Annual Report") for the fiscal year
ended  January 31, 2005, together with exhibits and any amendments thereto, as a
reporting  company  in  the  United  States  under  the  Act.

NOW,  THEREFORE,  the  undersigned in his capacity as director or officer of the
Company,  or  both,  as the case may be, does hereby appoint MARK E. JONES, III,
severally,  his  true  and  lawful  attorneys  or  attorney  with  full power of
substitution and resubstitution, to execute in his name, place and stead, in his
capacity  as  a director or officer of the Company, or both, as the case may be,
all  instruments  necessary or incidental to the Annual Report referred to above
including  any  amendments thereto, and to file the same or cause the same to be
filed  with  the  Commission.  The  said  attorney  shall  have  full  power and
authority to do and perform in the name and on the behalf of the undersigned, in
any  and  all capacities, every act whatsoever necessary or desirable to be done
in  the  premises,  as  fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might  or could do in person, the undersigned hereby ratifying and approving the
acts  of  said  attorney.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument as of the 23rd
day  of  April  2005.


/s/  Patrick  L.  Glazier
-------------------------
PATRICK  L.  GLAZIER


/s/  Brian  C.  Irwin
---------------------
BRIAN  C.  IRWIN


/s/  Leendert  G.  Krol
-----------------------
LEENDERT  G.  KROL


/s/  Daniel  B.  Leonard
------------------------
DANIEL  B.  LEONARD


/s/  Roger  H.  Mitchell
------------------------
ROGER  H.  MITCHELL


/s/  Roger  D.  Morton
----------------------
ROGER  D.  MORTON


<PAGE>
#### Alfonso Rodman, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 32732.)

Court of Claims,

October 5, 1959.

*Gustave G.*Rosenberg, *Lawrence M. Rosenberg*and *Stanley Rryer*for claimant.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Melvyn N. Thaler*of counsel), for defendant.

Alexander Del Giorno, J.

This is a motion for an order dismissing the claim upon the ground that claimant has failed diligently to prosecute his claim.

The claim is for damages against the State for injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the State.

There is pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, a companion action to the instant claim against the City of New York. The claimant indicates that he believes the trial of this claim should await the outcome of the action in Supreme Court, the inference being that if the latter action were to be disposed of first, successfully, either by verdict or settlement, then the instant claim would be discontinued.

*3The motion is denied, upon condition that claimant move to restore the claim prior to the January 1960 Calendar call of the court.

Settle order on notice accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  232,152
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           206,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                             20,000
<INVENTORY>                                              10,539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        480,885
<PP&E>                                                3,087,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,938,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       19,173,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5,285,681
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                           9,595,910
<COMMON>                                                 12,353
<OTHER-SE>                                           (1,521,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         19,173,147
<SALES>                                                 439,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        439,507
<CGS>                                                    24,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            24,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     19,966,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    3,636,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (23,281,091)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3,331,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (19,949,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       (2,187,080)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         473,857
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (21,662,419)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.31)



</TABLE>
# C_2018328EN.01002701.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B

(Case C-388/18)

(2018/C 328/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: B

Question referred

In cases involving the margin scheme provided for in Article 311 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) must the provision contained in point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing the turnover relevant under that provision, where this arises from a supply of goods as referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112/EC, in accordance with Article 315 of Directive 2006/112/EC, account is to be taken of the difference between the selling price charged and the purchase price (profit margin)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---