alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30371

Summary Calendar

Adam Shane Swindle, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

S. Ma'at, 

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:21-CV-400

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Adam Shane Swindle, federal prisoner # 32320-001, filed a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 petition challenging his disciplinary conviction for attempted mail 

abuse and the resulting loss of good time credits. The Disciplinary Hearing 

Officer (DHO) found that Swindle attempted to have Cellmate and Convict 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30371 Document: 00516103943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 21-30371

2

Services send an item to an address in Alabama instead of to his prison 

address, which would have circumvented the prison’s mail monitoring 

procedures. The district court concluded that the prison disciplinary 

procedures afforded Swindle due process and that some evidence supported 

the conviction. On appeal, Swindle argues that there was no evidence in the 

record to support a finding that he committed attempted mail abuse.

“[P]rison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned only where 

there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison 

officials.” Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). We review 

de novo whether there is “some evidence” in the record to support the

decision. Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2007). Here, 

Swindle does not dispute that he attempted to have an item sent to a nonprison address, and he admitted that conduct during the hearing before the 

DHO. Therefore, there was “some evidence in the record to support the 

disciplinary decision.” Broussard v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 874, 876 (5th 

Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 28 C.F.R. 

§ 541.3 (Table 1). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30371 Document: 00516103943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
II 

Calendar No. 460 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4463 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 14, 2018 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, 

as the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MABEL LEE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mabel 

7 Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4463 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial 

5 Post Office’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 460 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4463 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. York, New York, as the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial al Service located at 6 Doyers Street in New 

JUNE 14, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
# C_2008223EN.01002701.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/27

---

Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission

(Case C-268/08 P)

(2008/C 223/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by: C Meidanis. lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Declaration that the appeal is admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declaration that the appeal is admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annulment, as necessary, of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment, as necessary, of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04;

| — | Order as appropriate that costs be paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order as appropriate that costs be paid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds in support of his appeal.

In his first ground of appeal, Mr Michail claims that the Court of First Instance erred in the interpretation and application of Community law and failed to comply with its duty to state reasons in judgments, in that the Court acknowledged, in the contested judgment, that the Commission was partly responsible for the appellant feeling that he was subject to psychological harassment, within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, but nonetheless rejected his action as unfounded.

In his second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance distorted the sense of the facts presented for its assessment, in particular by examining the facts individually and not in their overall context, and that the Court made several errors in the legal classification of those facts.

In his third ground of appeal, the appellant lastly criticises the decision of the Court of First Instance to reject as inadmissible, for lack of precision, the numerous pleas in law on which he relied in support of his action, alleging, inter alia, infringement of Articles 21a, 22a and 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. By breaking down his action into several parts, the Court of First Instance altered the essential nature of the action in its objectives and structure.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```
1

NO. 12-15-00151

ROLAND ODOM § IN THE 12TH COURT OF APPEALS

 § 

V. § TYLER DIVISION 

 § 

STATE OF TEXAS § STATE OF TEXAS

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES Counsel, having file Appellant’s Brief finding no reversible 

errors, requests that he be allowed to withdraw from this appeal, pursuant to Rule 6.5 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for same would show as follows:

I.

Anders Brief Filed: 

On 08-31-15, Counsel filed Appellant’s Brief and reporter to the appellate 

court there absence of a reversible error and the waiver of the appeal by Appellant.

II.

Deadlines & Settings: 

To Counsel’s knowledge, there are no hearing set in this matter and there have 

been no announcements of pending submission dates.

III.

Client’s Address: 

Mr. Odom last known address is:

Roland I. Odom, Inmate No.: 00580038

Joe F. Gurney Transfer Unit

1385 FM 3328

Palestine, Texas 75803

ACCEPTED

12-15-00151-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/31/2015 2:35:15 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/31/2015 2:35:15 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
2

IV.

Letter to Client:

Counsel sent a copy of Appellant’s Brief to Appellant and explained 

Appellant’s rights regarding delivery of the records in the case; his right to object to 

Appellant’s Brief prepared by Counsel; and his right to submit his own Brief to this 

Court.

V.

Requested Relief:

Counsel requests permission to withdraw from the representation of Appellant.

VI.

Conference:

Counsel would show that he conferred with opposing counsel and this Request 

is presented as UNOPPOSED.

VII.

Certificate of Compliance (TRAP, Rule 9.4 (i)(3)):

Counsel certified that this document was prepared using WORD format and 

the word-count in this documents is 364. 

_______________________________

STEN M. LANGSJOEN
3

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel requests that this 

Motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

STEN M. LANGSJOEN

Attorney for Appellant

P.O. Box 539

Tyler, Texas 75710

Telephone: (903) 531-0171

Telefax: (903) 531-0187

TBA # 11922800

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or by "fax" transmission and/or by 

hand-delivery to District Attorney, Cherokee County, Texas, and was delivered by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular mail to Inmate Roland 

Odom, on this 31st day of August 2015.

____________________________

STEN M. LANGSJOEN
# C_2010221EN.01003901.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — BNP Paribas and BNL v European Commission

(Case T-335/08) (1)

1

(State aid - Measures taken by the Italian authorities concerning certain restructured banks - Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes - Decision classifying the aid scheme as incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of the aid - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Selective nature - Obligation to state reasons)

2010/C 221/62

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Quarterly Report of iPayment, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I Gregory S.
Daily, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (a)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

This Certification is executed as of November 4, 2005.

                   /s/  GREGORY S. DAILY
                   ------------------------
                   GREGORY S. DAILY
                   CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.




Date:
      May 8, 2009/s/ William M. Caldwell,
  IV


William
M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer and Principle Financial
Officer
**Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 – Bild digital and ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart v Präsident des Deutschen
Patent- und Markenamts**

**(Joined Cases C‐39/08 and C-43/08)**

First subparagraph of Article 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 89/104/EEC – Applications for registration of trade marks – Examination on a case-by-case basis – Failure to take account of earlier decisions – Manifest inadmissibility

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Registration of a trade mark refused or trade mark declared invalid – Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States – Effect (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 19)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Bundespatentgericht (Germany) – Interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) – Examination of applications for registration of trade marks on a case-by-case basis without account being taken of earlier decisions in similar situations – Refusal to register a trade mark applied for by the proprietor of a series of similar marks. |

**Operative part:**

The competent authority of a Member State called upon to rule on an application for registration of a trade mark is not required
to disregard the grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by Council Decision 92/10/EEC
of 19 December 1991, and to grant that application on the ground that the sign for which registration as a trade mark is sought
is composed in a manner identical or comparable to a sign which it has already accepted for registration as a trade mark and
which refers to identical or similar goods or services.
NO. 07-06-0482-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 30, 2007

______________________________

MIRIAM JENNETTE GRANADOS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B16346-0515; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Followingan open plea of guilty, Appellant Miriam Jennette Granados was convicted

of driving while intoxicated. Electing to have the jury assess punishment, Appellant was
1The due date for the reporter’s record is suspended by this abatement. The

reporter’s record will be due thirty days after reinstatement.

2

sentenced to 180 days confinement and a $2,000 fine. The clerk’s record was filed on

January 22, 2007, and the reporter’s record has yet to be filed.1 

The trial court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal contained in the clerk’s

record reflects “the defendant waived the right of appeal.” After a careful examination of

the clerk’s record, this Court determined there is no written waiver by Appellant of the right

of appeal. An inquiry by the appellate court clerk to the trial court clerk confirmed that no

written waiver exists. We now abate the appeal and remand the cause for an amended

certification.

Upon remand, the trial court shall execute an amended certification correctly

reflecting whether Appellant has the right of appeal. See generally Dears v. State, 154

S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (concluding that an appellate court has the ability

to examine a certification for defectiveness and obtain another when appropriate). The

amended certification is to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the

clerk of this Court on or before March 2, 2007.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# C_2009069EN.01005401.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/54

---

Action brought on 12 December 2008 — Di Prospero v Commission

(Case F-99/08)

(2009/C 69/119)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rita Di Prospero (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriguez and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of EPSO's decision not to accept the applicant's application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have allowed the applicant to submit an application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have allowed the applicant to submit an application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              MEXICO/CANADA/UNITED STATES ENERGY ALLIANCE

  (Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Texans are growing more concerned 
about the rising cost of gasoline. One lady recently wrote me:

       My husband drives a truck. As gas prices rise, so does the 
     cost of diesel. This affects the cost of every single thing 
     we buy. That includes food.

  Gasoline prices are the one thing that people should not need to 
worry about. We have the resources, but Washington keeps them under 
lock and key. And we still import half our oil from unstable dictators 
like Chavez and the OPEC monopoly.
  Americans can no longer afford to be beholden to the turmoil in the 
Middle East. So what about this idea?
  United States, Mexico, and Canada are rich with God-given natural 
resources. So working together in a new strategic energy partnership, 
our three nations could become the world's new energy superpower 
alliance to compete with OPEC. Let's create an energy supply built to 
last with our North American allies and finally make OPEC and Middle 
Eastern dictators irrelevant.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VIII,  Ltd. at December 31, 1998,  and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-K of CNL Income  Fund VIII,  Ltd.  for the year ended  December  31,
1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,809,258
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                   24,636
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         17,454,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,685,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,071,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,655,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,071,119
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,362,703
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  445,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,288,912
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,288,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,288,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature of its  industry,  CNL Income  Fund  VIII,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>