alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016052EN.01000101.xml

| 11.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7862 — TDR Capital/Euro Garages)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 52/01)

On 14 January 2016, 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:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32016M7862. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7862. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit AExhibit B
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10815

Summary Calendar

ROBERT A BELL

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TOMMY NORWOOD; LAWTON FREDERICK TYSON; CHRISTINA MELTON

CRAIN; BECKY PRICE; Warden BRUCE ZELLER

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CV-69

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert A. Bell, Texas prisoner # 755528, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983

suit to seek redress for various wrongs. Bell contended that his rights were

violated because he received no mail on Saturdays and because he was

transported in vehicles that lacked seatbelts. He also alleged that another

inmate violated his rights. The district court dismissed his suit as frivolous

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 13, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10815

2

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied his request to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

Bell argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his

claim concerning unsafe transportation. Bell does not present argument

concerning the district court’s determinations that his remaining claims were

also meritless. Bell’s failure to brief these issues results in an abandonment of

these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Bell’s “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore

not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Bell’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is

therefore GRANTED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

We dispense, however, with further briefing in this appeal, and, for the reasons

given below, affirm the district court’s judgment.

Bell relies on Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 28 (1993), in support of his

argument that the defendants breached his constitutional rights by transporting

him in a vehicle that lacked seatbelts. Bell also contends that officials infringed

his rights by failing to comply with TEX. GOV’T CODE § 500.006(a). Bell has not

shown that the defendants infringed his constitutional rights by transporting

him in vehicles that were not equipped with seatbelts. Consequently, he has not

shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. See

Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Resident Council

v. United States Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir.

1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed November 22, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00928-CR

IN RE LESLIE RAY FOSTER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-CR-1600

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 15, 2016, relator Leslie Ray Foster filed a pro se petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Kerry Neves, presiding judge of the 10th District Court of Galveston 

County to: (1) rule on his pro se “Application for Writ Of Habeas Corpus Seeking 
2

Personal Bond Under Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure or a 

Bond Reduction”, dated September 11, 2016 (the Habeas Application), and (2) 

grant any other relief deemed just.

Relator indicates in his petition that he was arrested for the offense of 

organized criminal activity and that an attorney has been appointed to represent 

him. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v. 

State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 

481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation 

means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as presenting 

nothing for this court’s review. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.–

Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); In re Bogus, 14-16-00129-CR, 2016 

WL 1165807, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 24, 2016, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (denying pro se petition for writ of mandamus 

because relator is represented by counsel). Because relator is represented by 

counsel, his pro se petition presents nothing for review.

We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 1045

CHRISTINE HUTTEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING; FAY SERVICING; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (Freddie Mac) , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Elizabeth City

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 2:23

- cv - 00031

- FL )

Submitted : April 1 8 , 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Christine Hutten , Appellant Pro Se. Hannah D. Kays , NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP , Raleigh , North Carolina; John T. Benjamin, Jr. , William E. Hubbard , LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. BENJAMIN, JR., PA , Raleigh , North Carolina; Claire Louise Collins , HUTCHENS LAW FIRM , Fayetteville , North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1045 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Christine Hutten appeals the district court’s orders dismissing a portion of her civil action, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the action, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order s
. Hutten v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC , No. 2:23

- cv - 00031

- FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 17 & Dec. 27, 2023).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 24-1045 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04-15-00609-CV

BREAKFRONT, LLC; Golden Oak Partners, LLC; Mark Slotkin, Individually, and as Trustee 

of the Slotkin Family Children’s Trust dtd January 1, 1997,

Appellants

v.

SOUTHWEST GUARANTY INVESTORS, LTD.,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-04-0331-CVA

Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ motion for reconsideration of denial of oral argument is denied.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1

The Honorable David R. Hansen became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on February 1, 2002.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2955

___________

Eugene H. Mathison, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Carol Twedt; Steve Reecy; Al Penning; *

Charlotte Heroux; Dan Elston; Three * [UNPUBLISHED]

Unknown Named Medical Personnel of *

Minnehaha County Jail, South Dakota; *

Five Unknown Officers of Minnehaha *

County Jail, South Dakota, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 1, 2002

 Filed: February 4, 2002

___________

Before HANSEN,1

 Chief Judge, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
2

The Honorable John Bailey Jones, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

-2-

Inmate Eugene Mathison appeals the district court’s2 dismissal of his action

asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising out of his stay in the Minnehaha County

Jail, and the court’s denial of his motions for recusal. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we conclude that the action was properly dismissed and the motions properly

denied. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2015316EN.01000201.xml

| 24.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7741 — Apollo Management/Stemcor)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 316/03)

On 17 September 2015, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7741. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7741. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
#### Williams vs. Ketchum.

A memorandum in the following form: “ I will be responsible for the purchase of goods from W. S. & Co., for H. C. D., or by his order, until I give them notice to the contrary,” dated and signed by defendant, *held*to express a consideration, and to be a valid agreement within the Statute of Frauds.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Outagamie*County.

This appeal was taken by the defendant from an order of said court overruling a demurrer to the complaint as not stating a cause of action. The contract declared on is set out in the opinion. The complaint further alleges the sale and delivery of goods to Dougherty by plaintiffs on the faith of defendant’s said agreement, and before he gave plaintiffs notice that he would not be responsible for further sales ; demand of payment from Dougherty, as the several bills became due, and his failure to pay; that, on &c., plaintiffs and defendant accounted together, and there was found due plaintiffs from defendant, on said several bills, a certain specified sum, of which payment was then and there duly demanded by plaintiffs from defendant, but the same had not been paid, &e.

*0. Coolbaugh,*for appellant,

argued that the agreement der dared on was void by sec. 2, ch. 107, R. S., because it did not express the consideration. Abbott’s PI. and Forms, 199 ; 1 Duer, 609-26; *Newcomb v. Ciarle,*1 Denio, 226; *Bennett v. Pratt,*4 id,, 275; *Hall v. Farmer,*5 id., 484; *Brewster v. /Silence,*4 Seld., 207 ; *Braper v. Snow,*20 N. Y., 832; *Taylor v. Pratt,*3 Wis., 674-98 ; *Hutson v. Field,*6 id., 407; *McDonell v. Bodge,*10 id., 108 — 11; Edwards on Bills (2d ed.), 212 (226). This was *not*an *original*promise. It contains no new consideration, and no request on the part of *Ketchum;*and he receives no benefit from the transaction. The complaint shows that the goods were sold to Dougherty. Parsons on Con., 498-9; *Tileston v. Nettleton,*6 Pick., 509 ; *Matthews v. Milton,*4 Yerg., 576 ; *Carville v. Crane,*5 Hill, 483.

*W. S. Warner,*for respondents,

cited *Kastman v. Bennett,*6 *232Wis., 232; *McNaughton v. Conlding,*9 Wis., 316; *Chase v. Day,*17 Johns., 114-; *Balter v. Band,*13 Barb., 152 ; *Graham v. O'Niel,*2 Hall, 474; *Rogers v. Verona,*1 Bosw., 417 ; *Griffin v. Keith,*1 Hilt., 58.

*By the Court,*

DOWNER, J.

Is there a consideration *expressed*in the written memorandum set out in the complaint, so as to make it a valid agreement, within the statute of frauds ? The memorandum is as follows: “ I will be responsible for the purchase of goods from Williams, Smith & Co., for A. C. Dougherty or by his order, until I give them notice to the contrary. Chicago, October 9, 1860. (Signed) H. Ketchum.” This is equivalent to saying, if you will sell Dougherty goods, in consideration thereof, I will be responsible for the amount of the sales until notice to the contrary. It has been uniformly held that such memorandums relating to *future*sales, do express, not in so many words, but as gathered from the whole instrument, the consideration, and are valid. This answers, in substance, all the objections to the complaint.

Order of the court below affirmed, with costs.
# C_2015067EN.01001401.xml

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/14

---

Special Report No 24/2014 ‘Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed?’

(2015/C 67/08)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 24/2014 ‘Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

870 

KA 14-00717 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SPENCER WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J.

Miller, J.), rendered November 20, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter

is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings on the

indictment. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his guilty plea of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law 

§ 125.20 [1]). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant

entered his guilty plea in satisfaction of the indictment by which he

was charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree (§ 125.25

[1]), and County Court imposed a determinate term of incarceration of

25 years. During discussions over the plea offer, the court addressed

the possibility of a jury convicting defendant of the lesser included

offense of manslaughter in the first degree by stating: “[Y]ou

wouldn’t get any better than 25 [years] if you get a manslaughter. 

That’s a big ‘if.’ ” Defendant contends that the court erred in

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that it

was coerced. We agree. “[T]he court’s statements do not amount to a

description of the range of potential sentences but, rather, they

constitute impermissible coercion, rendering the plea involuntary and

requiring its vacatur” (People v Kelley, 114 AD3d 1229, 1230 [internal

quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boyde, 122 AD3d 1302, 1302-

1303). In light of our decision, we do not address defendant’s

challenge to the severity of his sentence.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2015162EN.01000301.xml

| 19.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 May 2015

(2015/C 162/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1328 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4652 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,72110 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4273 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0463 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3745 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,401 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,67 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0432 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4415 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9405 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4159 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3636 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7803 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5237 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5023 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 234,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,4438 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0278 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5468 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 878,12 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0449 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,365 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 56,7475 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,070 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4119 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2921 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,1159 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1328

JPY

Japanese yen

135,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4652

GBP

Pound sterling

0,72110

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4273

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0463

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3745

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,401

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,67

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0432

RON

Romanian leu

4,4415

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9405

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4159

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3636

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7803

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5237

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5023

KRW

South Korean won

1 234,48

ZAR

South African rand

13,4438

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0278

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5468

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 878,12

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0449

PHP

Philippine peso

50,365

RUB

Russian rouble

56,7475

THB

Thai baht

38,070

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4119

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2921

INR

Indian rupee

72,1159

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015319EN.01000101.xml

| 26.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7606 — Grupo Antolín/Magna Interiors)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 319/01)

On 4 August 2015, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7606. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7606. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---