alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW IRVIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No: 1:22-cv-00385 (UNA) 

)

FACEBOOK, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 

1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant 

the IFP application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Federal Rule 8, in addition to other Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. 

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Preliminarily, neither the complaint nor the IFP application are 

captioned for this court. The complaint is captioned for the “Circuit Courts of the District of 

Columbia,” and the “Circuit Civil Courts of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit.” The IFP application 

lacks a caption entirely. Therefore, both submissions fail to comply with Federal Rule 10(a). 

Additionally, plaintiff provides piecemeal information regarding the intended defendants, in 

further contravention of Federal Rule 10(a) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). 

Moreover, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain 

“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted 
2

so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). A 

complaint “that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and 

confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard, and so will a complaint that contains 

an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully 

distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments.” Jiggetts v. D.C., 

319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 

5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). The instant complaint falls within this category. 

The prolix complaint totals 128 pages. It is disorganized and incomprehensible. Neither 

the court nor the defendants can be expected to decipher what claims plaintiff attempts to bring, 

or to discern any basis for jurisdiction or to plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, if any. Consequently, 

it fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule 8(a), as well as the strictures 

of Federal Rule 10(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(d)–(e). 

For all of these reasons, the complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed. An order consistent with 

this memorandum opinion is issued separately.

 

TREVOR N. McFADDEN

Dated: May 10, 2022 United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
       H.R. 6243.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States 
     Constitution, and Amendment XVI of the United States 
     Constitution.

                          ____________________
```
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(33-79894, 333-25879, 333-47821) on Form S-8 of Onsite Energy Corporation of our
report dated September 28, 1998,  except for the last paragraph of Note 20 which
is as of October 16, 1998, relating to the consolidated  balance sheet of Onsite
Energy  Corporation  and  subsidiaries  as of June  30,  1998,  and the  related
statements of operations,  stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the
years ended June 30, 1998 and 1997,  which report  appears in the June 30, 1998,
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Onsite Energy Corporation.



/s/  HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP

Hein + Associates LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Orange, California
June 4, 1999
#### Henry FORD, County Assessor of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. 39425.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 5, 1961.

*860James W. Bill Berry, County Atty., by W. C. Kessler, Asst. County Atty., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., L. G. Hyden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert D. Lynn, Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Ed Armstrong, Asst. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

Frank Carter, Enid, of counsel: Otjen & Carter, Enid, for Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Amicus Curiae.

PER CURIAM.

This is another appeal from the same order of the State Board of Equalization appealed from in Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.

As the parties herein have caused the briefs filed by the party-litigants, in that case to be considered as their briefs-in this case — thus submitting the same issues here, as there — our opinion there is decisive here. Accordingly, on the basis of the principles there announced and applied, plaintiff in error has shown no valid ground for reversing the order appealed from; and it is again affirmed.

As in the cited case, it is further ordered that the time for filing a petition for rehearing herein be limited to ten (10) days-from the date this opinion is filed.

WILLIAMS, C. J., and WELCH,. DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.

IRWIN, J., concurs specially.

JACKSON, J., dissents.

IRWIN, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur specially for the reasons set forth in Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.
# C_2009233EN.01002201.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/22

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2009 — Locchi v Commission

(Case F-78/08) (1)

1

2009/C 233/45

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 66.

1

---
# C_2021206EN.01000801.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Slovanet a.s.

(Case C-152/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Slovak market for broadband internet access services - Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop - Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop - Indispensability of the access - Imputability of a subsidiary’s conduct to the parent company - Rights of the defence)

(2021/C 206/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG (represented by: D. Schroeder and K. Apel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, M. Farley, L. Malferrari, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents), Slovanet a.s. (represented by: P. Tisaj, advokát)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
# C_2009113EN.01002804.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/28

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 21 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid — Spain) — Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Asociación de Artistas Intérpretes o Ejecutantes — Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE) v Sogecable, SA, Canal Satélite Digital SL

(Case C-98/08) (1)

1

2009/C 113/54

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**TERRENCE BETHEA,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PA. STATE POLICE,** 

**Appellees :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 85 MAP 2014** 

**Appeal from Appeal from the Order from**
**Commonwealth Court dated June 18, 2014**

**at Docket No. 261 MD 2014**

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 27, 2015

AND NOW **, this 27 th**  **day of April, 2015, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is** 

AFFIRMED

**.**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Grady HOWLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1485

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 1, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1976.

Daniel V. Alfaro, Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

*1303Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mary L. Sinderson, George A. Kelt, Jr., Robert A. Berg, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from his conviction for possession of 119 pounds of marihuana, John Grady Howie contends only that the Border Patrol had no probable cause to stop his pickup truck at a permanent checkpoint near Falfurrias, Texas, some fifty-five miles from the Mexican border.1 The Supreme Court has recently held, however, that any automobile may be stopped at such checkpoints even in the absence of reasonable suspicion. *United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,*- U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d - (1976). Inasmuch as Howie does not contend that the Border Patrol lacked probable cause to search his truck once it had been stopped at the checkpoint, the District Judge did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized. *See United States v. Ortiz,*422 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975).

AFFIRMED.

1

. *See United State v. Torres,*5 Cir., 1976, 537 F.2d 1300; *United States v. Dimas,*5 Cir., 1976, 537 F.2d 1301.
EXHIBIT 10.14.2

	
  
 
  	
  
March 28,   2005
  
	
  
 
  	
  
 
  
	
  
Rick Kundrat
  	
  
 
  
	
  
NuVim Inc.
  	
  
 
  
	
  
12 Route 17   North
  	
  
 
  
	
  
Paramus,   NJ  07652
  	
  
 
  




 

	
  
 
  	
  
Re:
  	
  
Amendment to   Services Agreement and Convertible Promissory Note, each dated July 26, 2004;   Second Amendment to Services Agreement and Warrant, each dated September   14, 2004
  



Dear Rick:


                    Under the terms of the above-referenced documents, the passage of the date January 1, 2005 triggers certain rights to me.  By letter date November 3, 2004, I extended such date to March 31, 2005.  By this letter, I hereby agree that as follows:


                    Under Section 2.1(b) of the Convertible Promissory Note, I am entitled to an “Optional Conversion” if NuVim Inc. has not consummated the IPO (as defined therein) before January 1, 2005.  By this letter, I hereby agree to further amend the date January 1, 2005 to April 30, 2005.


                    Under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Warrant, I am entitled to exercise the Warrant in accordance with the terms of the Warrant on or after January 1, 2005.  By this letter, I hereby agree to further amend the date January 1, 2005 to April 30, 2005.


                    Nothing contained in this letter or my letter of November 3, 2004 shall impact upon the date after which interest begins to accrue at the default rate of interest under the Convertible Promissory Note or under any other note or instrument issued by NuVim Inc. to me.

	
  
 
  	
  
Very truly   yours,
  
	
  
 
  	
  
 
  
	
   
  	
  /s/ DICK CLARK
  
	
   
  	
  


  
	
   
  	
  Dick Clark
# C_2008142EN.01003202.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/32

---

Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Schniga v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand (Gala-Schnitzer)

(Case T-135/08)

(2008/C 142/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Schniga Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by G. Würtenberger, lawyer and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SNC Elaris (Angers, France) and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of 21 November 2007 in cases A-003/2007 and A-004/2007; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of 21 November 2007 in cases A-003/2007 and A-004/2007; and

| — | order CPVO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Konsortium Südtiroler Baumschuler, following the transfer of the variety at issue, Schniga Srl (Application No 1999/0033)

Applicant for Community plant variety rights

Community plant variety right sought for: Gala-Schnitzer

Community plant variety right sought for

Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted (Decisions No EU 18759, OBJ 06-021 and OBJ 06-022)

Decision of the CPVO

Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: SNC Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd

Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the CPVO

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59(3) of Council Regulation No 2100/94 (1) as the objections to the Community plant variety right do not comply with the said provision; the disputed decision is based on requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant beyond the legislative framework; the power and discretion of the President of CPVO have been wrongly assessed.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2009032EN.01004202.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/42

---

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

(Case T-498/08)

(2009/C 32/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

| — | take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Lübeck Blankensee airport.

1

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

Ryanair

Commission

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.**§ **1350)**     The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of ARRIS Group, Inc., certifies that to thebest of his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006,which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the quarterly report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ARRISGroup, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is madepursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied uponfor any other purpose.     Dated this 2nd day of November, 2006.                                                        /s/ David B. Potts   David B. Potts   Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Chief Accounting Officer, and Chief Information Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60575 Conference Calendar

ROBERT CRAIG STARKS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:03-CV-283-BrS

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Craig Starks, federal prisoner # 83561-020, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he alleged that the procedures used in his prison disciplinary proceeding violated his due process rights and, further, that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. Federal habeas relief, however, can be had only where the petitioner has been deprived of some right secured to him by the laws of the United States or by the United States Constitution.No. 03-60575 -2- Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000). Although disciplinary action resulting in an inmate’s loss of previously earned “good time” must be accompanied by procedural safeguards,

see Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974), Starks was not deprived of good-time credits. Moreover, he has no constitutional right to be housed in any particular facility, and he concedes that he was never placed in administrative segregation. See Olim v. Wakinekona , 461 U.S. 238, 244-45 (1983); Tighe v. Wall , 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Luken v. Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). He therefore has not been deprived of a liberty interest and has not stated a cognizable § 2241 claim. See Malchi , 211 F.3d at 957.
AFFIRMED.
#### Jerome S. Montelione, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Greenburg Edgemont Union Free School District at Scarsdale, Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), dated December 13, 1989, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that action is time barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On April 29, 1988, the injured plaintiff, then an 18-year-old high school student, tripped and was injured while helping his gym teacher move some tables. Although a notice of claim *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e) was timely served, service of a summons and complaint was not effectuated until August 14, 1989, some 17 days after expiration of the Statute of Limitations *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-i). In support of their claim of estoppel, the. plaintiffs note that, in a letter acknowledging receipt of the notice of claim, the defendant made an obviously erroneous reference to receipt of a summons and complaint. Further, the defendant demanded a *114hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, and sent a letter to the plaintiffs’ attorney suggesting an "amicable resolution of this matter”. However, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of fraud, misrepresentation or deception which induced them to refrain from timely commencement of this action so as to estop the defendant from interposing the Statute of Limitations as a bar to this action *(see, Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442; *Rains v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*120 AD2d 509; *see also, Simon v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth.,*95 AD2d 902). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
exv10w2



 








EXHIBIT 10.2




AMENDMENT TO

REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to Stock Purchase Agreement is made this 31st
day of March, 2005, by and between Navarre Corporation, a Minnesota corporation
(the “Company”) and Michael A. Bell (“Seller”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Seller are parties to a Registration Rights
Agreement dated March 14, 2005 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Seller desire to amend the Agreement to reflect
certain changes in a corresponding Stock Purchase Agreement entered into
between the parties.



     NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the aforesaid and of the mutual
obligations hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the Company and
Seller, the parties agree as follows:




     1. Recital D of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words “up to
600,000 shares” and replacing them with “300,000 shares”.




     2. Section 2.h. of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words “three
(3) years from the date of this Agreement” and replacing them with “two (2)
years from the date of this Agreement”.




     3. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its original terms.



[The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank]




 









 









[Signature Page to Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement]




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Seller have executed and delivered to the
other party this Amendment effective as of the day and year first above
written.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:





NAVARRE CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ James G. Gilbertson
 	 
	 	 	James G. Gilbertson 	 
	 	 	Its: Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SELLER:

 	 
	 	/s/ Michael A. Bell
 	 
	 	Michael A. Bell 	 
	 	 	 
	 





2