alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus RUFUS HOUSER, a/k/a Pookie, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-12) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus Houser, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rufus Houser, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to vacate judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), which Houser attempted to bring under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Houser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Houser’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. SeeUnited States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 995 (2003). In order- 3 - to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on colla teral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Houser’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Houser to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-31312 Conference Calendar

LARRY LEE JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JULES THADDEUS FANGUY, Judge, City Court, Houma, LA; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY,
Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-2886-C

-------------------- April 12, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Larry Lee Johnson appeals the dismissal of his claims against Judge Jules Thaddeus Fanguy of the City Court of Houma, Louisiana. Johnson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleges that Judge Fanguy violated his civil and constitutional rights in his rulings in several state-court cases in which Johnson sought rent from, reimbursement of taxes paid on, and other relief regardingNo. 99-31312 -2- co-owned, inherited property. Johnson’s motion to file his brief in its present form is GRANTED. Judicial officers such as Judge Fanguy are entitled to absolute immunity from damage claims under § 1983 arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions. Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court did not err in concluding that Judge Fanguy is absolutely immune from suit and in dismissing the claims against him. The district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction overJohnson’s claims which sought federal appellate review of statecourt judgments and are “inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 476 & 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); Chrissy F. by Medley v. Miss. Dep't of Pub. Welfare , 995 F.2d 595, 598-99 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court is affirmed on that ground. See Sojourner T v. Edwards , 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). Johnson’s requests that we transfer this case to the United States Supreme Court are DENIED. To the extent that he wishes to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, he has 90 days after the entry of this opinion in which to file such a petition in the Supreme Court pursuant to the rules of that court. See S UP . C T . R ULES 12-14. All other pending motions are DENIED. AFFIRMED.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022263EN.01002201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/22 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10787 – SONY / HONDA / JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 263/08)

1.

On 1 July 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022263EN.01002201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sony Group Corporation (‘Sony’, Japan), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (‘Honda’, Japan), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | A newly created company (‘JV’, Japan). |

Sony and Honda will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sony is active globally in the businesses for electronics products, games (e.g., game consoles and software), entertainment services, and financial services, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Honda is active globally in four main areas: automobiles, motorcycles, financial services, and power products. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The JV is a greenfield joint venture that will design, develop, produce, market, and sell high value-added battery electric vehicles. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022263EN.01002201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10787 – SONY / HONDA / JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022263EN.01002201-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022263EN.01002201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
# C_2023230EN.01000201.xml

| 30.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10834 – AGROFERT / BOREALIS NITRO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 230/02)

On 13 March 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10834. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10834. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2852 

To provide for the eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery of 

certain members of reserve components of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2015 

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. 

RICHMOND, and Mr. PALAZZO) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the 

Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the eligibility for burial in Arlington National 

Cemetery of certain members of reserve components of 

the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘FLORICH Act’’ or 

5 ‘‘Founding Legacies of Reserve Integral Combat-training 

6 Heroes Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2852 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL IN ARLINGTON NATIONAL 

2 CEMETERY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF RE3 SERVE COMPONENTS. 

4 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL.—A member of a re5 serve component of the Armed Forces described in sub6 section (b) is eligible for burial in Arlington National Cem7 etery, Arlington, Virginia. 

8 (b) ELIGIBLE MEMBER OF A RESERVE COMPO9 NENT.—A member of a reserve component of the Armed 

10 Forces described in this subsection is a member of a re11 serve component who dies while serving on inactive-duty 

12 training during a mission during which a member of the 

13 Armed Forces serving on active duty also dies. 

14 (c) SAVINGS PROVISION.—This section may not be 

15 construed to make ineligible for burial in Arlington Na16 tional Cemetery a person who is eligible to be buried in 

17 that cemetery under another provision of law. 

18 (d) REGULATIONS.—This section shall be carried out 

19 under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 

20 Army. 

21 (e) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the 

22 term ‘‘inactive-duty training’’ has the meaning given such 

23 term under section 101(d)(7) of title 10, United States 

24 Code. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2023111EN.01000201.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11036 – EP POWER EUROPE / CAMDEN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 111/02)

On 17 March 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11036. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11036. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>





                            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 Annual Report of J. C. Penney Funding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 25, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, William J. Alcorn, Vice President and Controller of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

DATED this 10 day of April 2003.


                                        /s/ WILLIAM J. ALCORN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William J. Alcorn
                                        Vice President and Controller
                                        J. C. Penney Funding Corporation
# CA2012020EN.01000101.xml

| 25.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 20/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 20/1

---

RESERVE LIST (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/194/10

LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE (EN)

(2012/C 20 A/01)

EP/Council Channel

| CLOAREC | Fiona Margaret |
| --- | --- |
| DUNLOP | Steven |
| KEYS | Alexander Thomas |
| KING | Sarah-Jane |
| MORE | Gillian |
| MURPHY | Shane |
| O'SULLIVAN | Peter Anthony |
| PALMER | Helen |
| ZATSCHLER | Carsten |

CLOAREC

Fiona Margaret

DUNLOP

Steven

KEYS

Alexander Thomas

KING

Sarah-Jane

MORE

Gillian

MURPHY

Shane

O'SULLIVAN

Peter Anthony

PALMER

Helen

ZATSCHLER

Carsten

The reserve list will be valid until 13 December 2012 and may be extended.

13 December 2012

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
----

| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Exhibit 99.1 | Press Release dated April 27, 2012 issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| Exhibit No. | Description                                                               |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1        | Press Release, dated April 27, 2012 issued by First Merchants Corporation |

----
#### Lengyel, Appellee, *v.*Brandmiller et al., County Commrs.; City of Youngstown, Appellant. 

(No. 28838

Decided December 10, 1941.)

*Mr. Raymond L. Falls*and *Mr. Herbert L. Kerr,*for appellee.

*Mr. John A. Willo,*director of law, *Mr. Homer E. Carlyle*and *Mr. I. Freeman,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Jerry Collazo, certify that:

 

1.       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Channell CommercialCorporation;

 

2.       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date: November 21, 2005

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Jerry Collazo       |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Jerry Collazo           |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----