alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015028EN.01000301.xml

| 28.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7394 — Fujitsu/Panasonic/DBJ/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 28/02)

On 21 January 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 32015M7394. 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 32015M7394. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 28 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 28

To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer Continental 
Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend the moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2021

    Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer Continental 
Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend the moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, 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 ``Florida Shores Protection and 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STATE OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO OUTER 
              CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM.

    Section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 
U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-432) is amended by striking paragraph 
(7) and inserting the following:
            ``(7) Gulf producing state.--The term `Gulf producing 
        State' means each of the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
        Mississippi, and Texas.''.

SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF GULF OF 
              MEXICO.

    Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 
(43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-432) is amended in the matter 
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``June 30, 2022'' and inserting 
``June 30, 2032''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Michael K. RobinsonMichael K. RobinsonChief Executive Officer, President and
Assistant Treasurer
# C_2015117EN.01001001.xml

| 11.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/10

---

Corrigendum to the euro exchange rates

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 113 of 8 April 2015
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 113 of 8 April 2015

(2015/C 117/09)

Page 5 is replaced by the following page:

‘Euro exchange rates (1)

7 April 2015

(2015/C 113/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0847 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4714 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,72860 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3740 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0438 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7300 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,455 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,08 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0578 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4165 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8079 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4192 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3563 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4086 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4423 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4724 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 183,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,8345 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,7241 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6190 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 091,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9527 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 48,300 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 59,8265 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,335 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3979 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,1919 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,5980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0847

JPY

Japanese yen

130,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4714

GBP

Pound sterling

0,72860

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3740

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0438

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7300

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,455

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,08

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0578

RON

Romanian leu

4,4165

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8079

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4192

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3563

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4086

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4423

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4724

KRW

South Korean won

1 183,28

ZAR

South African rand

12,8345

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,7241

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6190

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 091,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9527

PHP

Philippine peso

48,300

RUB

Russian rouble

59,8265

THB

Thai baht

35,335

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3979

MXN

Mexican peso

16,1919

INR

Indian rupee

67,5980

---

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

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TOBY HUNTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00239-GCM-DCK-6; 3:16-cv-00052-

GCM)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Toby Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, Maria 

Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Toby Hunter seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Hunter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2739 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2739

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to add certain counties to the 
                 definition of ``Appalachian region''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2021

 Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Mr. Hagerty) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to add certain counties to the 
                 definition of ``Appalachian region''.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF APPALACHIAN REGION.

    Section 14102(a)(1)(K) of title 40, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Hickman, Humphreys,'' after 
        ``Hawkins,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``Perry,'' after ``Overton,''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>   DEC-31-1995    
<PERIOD-START> JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>   SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>     3,589,771
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>    3,589,771
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE> 3,589,771
<EQUITIES>     4,356
<MORTGAGE>     604,867
<REAL-ESTATE>  225,953
<TOTAL-INVEST> 5,071,113
<CASH>    3,238
<RECOVER-REINSURE>  519,197
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>   296,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 7,765,260
<POLICY-LOSSES>     4,607,610
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS> 0
<POLICY-OTHER> 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS> 0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>    0
<COMMON>  2,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>    0
<PREFERRED>    0
<OTHER-SE>     705,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  7,765,260
<PREMIUMS>     0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME> 266,686
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>    (42,319)
<OTHER-INCOME> 25,435
<BENEFITS>     183,598
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>   23,489
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>     36,846
<INCOME-TAX>   11,901
<INCOME-CONTINUING> 24,945
<DISCONTINUED> 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>     0
<CHANGES> 0
<NET-INCOME>   24,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>  0
<EPS-DILUTED>  0
<RESERVE-OPEN> 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT> 0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>   0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>  0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>    0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>     0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>  0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133441 & (29) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133441 

 COA: 271346 
 Wayne CC: 96-007674-01 

OTIS V. FRAZIER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED. 

d0914 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 21, 2007 

Clerk
#### Eaton vs. Eaton and others.

May 15.

Equity will not interfere to compel the affixing of a seal to a *volwntarn*instru ment of conveyance which was invalid for want of a seal.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Green Lake*County.

The facts necessary to an understanding of the point decided are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Whittemore &*Austin, for appellant.

*A. B. Hamilton,*for respondents.

*By the*Court,

Paine, J.

This suit was brought to reform a deed by compelling the grantors to affix a seal. It appears that the attempted conveyance was voluntary. It is well settled, that equity will not interfere to enforce a voluntary contract to convey. *Smith vs. Wood,*12 Wis., 882. A defective attempt to make a voluntary conveyance stands upon the same grqund. Judicial tribunals act to enforce legal obligations, not to compel parties to carry into execution mere *260benevolent intentions, which they may once have entertained, but have subsequently abandoned. So far as giving is concerned, they are allowed to say as Ealstaff did of reasons, that they will not “ give upon compulsion.”

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Order entered December 1, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00489-CR

NISHAL KESHAV RAJSAKHA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB-1358026-A

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 28, 2016 motion for extension of time to file 

brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief filed by DECEMBER 6, 2016.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
l REF ID:A40349 

, 

__ _.__~~..L.LLw.fl6- ..r~/ltyec (!19 ~''°""' :Z flflt:? /t!:(,,,,;;J,._,.d.~.&~4un4.&o"ic.. 

----1---1-...,Jt:::.-ffl~~a"::idi~« .... ,r A ~ h ,.&e=Le C-L .-.&.r,_.,1 .,; . / / , , ~ r -- 7 . uor 

___ ......_--i-------0~ 4 •• t4 J d" '"';I"" .2.-o 41: .,.4"""' =es ts .M w c...t a .. 

JfJS1!l- J r)4-//f"(' ~~~="~~,,,_) __ _ 

-----'~--~~ t/.$1.TCG ~--~ ..... ~,,,/~.:=~£...7~~~~C~IC:~t:-J.J~-------

__ AA.JC/" _,,,ov - -------=----~-------

----'---+·-- --~-

( .. 

~*~ .. ~?tl'~SAI /Z.. J;,;,.l d .fd' - __ _......_--.£-----~---==--= 

__ __._.1-1-----...dll.¢~~~~~ ... .,,.~~ ~ f~ .h. t:6Ae.J' ~,lcr-4v ~ __ 

--~-......_ ___ C.-!!:'..1....J!L_a.s-r4A.a..c:""° \lo ~th.-~ wa/P~•at 

~ I 

______ --C..'μJ .u.a-.. --··baM ,<l~s ./(' .,;-. 

J ~~7~ ~~ .M..,,~...,.:;> -_---- .. 4'4 ~~--~-~ ~~~-

v.. f I 14 

1 

_ -!\pp roved for Release b~ NSA on 09-26-2013 pursuantto E .O. 1352fL_ _ 
REF ID:A40349 

' 

7 a 

-----'"---'--~fk ~-/ ~ ([IA - c4-/ 6--.. --L--.-f--_J.~"""1/!'----~-~~.J-~.:~f-u~~ ~ L$a ..aec /?eP 

-~-'-4---~~~~~~ ---- ·------ ------

----'--!_A- ~ 

15-lf~~~,~~~ _ ~~~iS ~e1'~? +.~ 

~ 

_______ _,_ ___ - -

----------- - - - -- -- -

- -- - ------------

--'~----------= I !~--~--------------------------------------­ I 

I ~ 
~~~~REF ID:A40349 

c 7h-t.- ~·cw~"' ~Z- A.Ju~ 

--+------"~~~~-~-~-~---f-~c~.J~/o _ _ -tfFe"!-'c ~-­

? ~ t.Jt:S ~a-tA ~-~ 

--- --·-+---__,,..ddL...----A!t~~~~- ~ fl~__J_r,v} 

--- ---·-----------·------------

------~--

-- -----·~~·~~---~---~ 

- - -- -·------ -----·---

-------~~-~-~-----~ -

--- --------

·----------------- - - -- -- -

1 ------ --------

-r _____ -- ------- ----- ---------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0514

IN THE MATTER OF, 

A.Z.G.,

A Youth Under the Age of Eighteen.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 14, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 8 2024

01/08/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0514
# C_2014153EN.01000101.xml

| 21.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7161 — DCC Energy/Qstar Försäljning/Qstar/Card Network Solutions)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 153/01)

On 24 April 2014, 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 the 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-5202 September Term, 2014

 1:10-cv-01263-BAH

Filed On: August 7, 2015

Matt Sissel, 

 Appellant

v.

United States Department of Health and

Human Services, et al., 

 Appellees

BEFORE: Rogers, Pillard, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response

thereto, and the full court’s deliberation during the poll on whether to call for a vote on

the petition, the panel considered whether we should “sua sponte vacate [our] judgment

and rehear[] the case.” Murphy v. I.R.S., 493 F.3d 170, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2007); cf. RULES

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 13.3 (noting practice within the Courts of

Appeals to “sua sponte consider[] rehearing”). Upon such further careful consideration,

the panel reaffirms its opinion in Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014), and, it is

ORDERED that the rehearing be denied.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

 Deputy Clerk
Order entered December 5, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00513-CR

FERNANDO SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-75749-V

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On November 22, 2016, we denied appellant’s third motion to extend time to file his 

brief and ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief had not been 

filed. On November 30, 2016, we received appellant’s brief, along with a motion asking us to 

reconsider his third extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we 

VACATE the November 22, 2016 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the November 30, 2016 motion to reconsider and ORDER appellant’s brief 

filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2202

___________________________

Arron Michael Lewis

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Charles Holladay, "Doc" Sheriff, Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Carl Johnson, M.D., Doctor, Pulaski County Jail

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Sarah Speer, Registered Nurse, Pulaski County Jail; Scott Hazel, Sergeant, Pulaski

County Jail; Vanessa Lowe, Deputy, Transportation, Pulaski County Jail; Jacob

Mitchell, Nurse, Medical Staff, Pulaski County Jail; Jeff Allison, Detective,

Pulaski County Deputy; Jackson Bennett, Lieutenant, Pulaski County Deputy;

Gary Seibel, Detective; Drew Evans, Detective, Pulaski County Jail; Jackman,

Deputy, Transportation, Pulaski County Jail; Stuart, Sergeant, Pulaski County Jail;

Elliott, Nurse, Intake/Booking, Pulaski County Jail; Kimberly Stowe, Nurse,

Intake/Booking, Pulaski County Jail

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________
 Submitted: November 15, 2016

 Filed: November 30, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arron Michael Lewis appeals, following the entry offinal judgment, the district

court’s order granting summary judgment on certain claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1

action. We conclude that, for the reasons the district court stated, summary judgment

was warranted. See Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo

review). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 2

______________________________

The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations ofthe Honorable Jerry

W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

We decline to consider the new matters Lewis raises on appeal. See Stone v. 2

Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004). 

-2-
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000066

29-NOV-2016

01:37 PM