alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reuben James THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric FANNING,* Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-17160

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Filed December 22, 2016

Reuben James Thompson, Pro Se

*981Peter Michael Lantka, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Laurence G. Tinsley, Jr., Esquire, Senior General Counsel, USPX— Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Eric Fanning is substituted for his predecessor, John M. McHugh, as Secretary of the Army under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Reuben James Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his employment action alleging constitutional claims and discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Arrington v. Wong,*287 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)); *Moran v. Selig,*447 F.3d 748, 753 (9th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s constitutional claims because Title VII “provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment.” *See Brown v. General*Servs. *Admin.,*425 U.S. 820, 835, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Thompson’s Title VII race discrimination claim because Thompson failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and, even assuming that Thompson had established a prima facie case, Thompson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment were pretextual. *See Moran,*447 F.3d at 753-58 (affirming summary judgment on Title VII claim because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and, alternatively, failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext).

The district court did hot abuse its discretion by denying Thompson’s motion for reconsideration because Thompson failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief from judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record Thompson’s contention that the district court improperly held private meetings with defendant.

We treat Thompson’s request that case law be established, set forth in his reply brief, as a request for publication of the memorandum disposition, and deny his request.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as proyid-ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 85-1549.

#### G. J. Deasy Investment, Inc., dba Texas Vehicle Management *v.*Mattox, Attorney General of Texas, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffery Lynn ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30179 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 16, 2017

Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jeffery Lynn Alexander, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jeffery Lynn Alexander has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alexander has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for *874leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EDELLA JOHNSON (A/K/A EDELLA

ROBINSON, A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON

JOHNSON), ERIC JOHNSON,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED

FORMER AND CURRENT

HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioners

 v.

PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 335 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioners, is:

(1) Does Act 6, §502 provide a remedy, as the explicit language of the statute

establishes, against any statutorily defined “person” collecting statutorily

prohibited fees on behalf of residential mortgage lenders?

The Application to File Supplement to Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DISMISSED as moot.
Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report of Gazit-Globe Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Aharon Soffer, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 16, 2014



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Aharon Soffer
|Aharon Soffer    
|President
Exhibit 32.2


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 Barings BDC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Bock, Chief Financial Officer 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.





/s/ JONATHAN BOCKJonathan BockChief Financial OfficerFebruary 27, 2019
Order entered January 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01027-CR

No. 05-13-01028-CR

No. 05-13-01029-CR

No. 05-13-01030-CR

ANGELA KAY TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-55645-Q, F13-30649-Q, F13-55642-Q, F12-40522-Q

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of 

the date of this order, supplemental clerk’s records containing detailed itemizations of the costs 

assessed in the cases, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed 

attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost 

bills shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive 

payment for the costs. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s records include 

documents explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# Eiropas Savienības C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0952
  doi:10.3000/19770952.C_2014.034.lav |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 34 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 57. sējums2014. gada 5. februāris |

ISSN 1977-0952

doi:10.3000/19770952.C_2014.034.lav

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 34

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

57. sējums2014. gada 5. februāris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Atzinumi |
| | ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS |
| | Eiropas Parlaments |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Lēmums | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

V   Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Parlaments

2014/C 034/01

Lēmums

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

V Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Parlaments

| 5.2.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 34/1

---

LĒMUMS

2014/C 34/01

EIROPAS PARLAMENTA ĢENERĀLSEKRETĀRS,

ŅEMOT VĒRĀ Padomes Regulu (EEK, Euratom, EOTK) Nr. 259/68 (1), kura grozīta ar Padomes Regulu (EK, Euratom) Nr. 723/2004 (2) un kurā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2010. gada 24. novembra Regulu (ES, Euratom) Nr. 1080/2010, ar ko groza Eiropas Kopienu Civildienesta noteikumus un Kopienu Pārējo darbinieku nodarbināšanas kārtību (3), un jo īpaši ņemot vērā šo noteikumu 30. pantu,

ŅEMOT VĒRĀ Prezidija 2004. gada 3. maija lēmumu par pilnvaru nodošanu struktūrvienībai, kas ir kompetenta iecelt amatā, un struktūrvienībai, kas ir pilnvarota slēgt darba līgumus, kurā Prezidijs jaunākos grozījumus izdarījis 2009. gada 4. maijā,

ŅEMOT VĒRĀ, ka 2013. gada 31. decembrī beidzas derīguma termiņš Eiropas Parlamenta turpmāk minētajiem rezerves sarakstiem:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

tā kā saskaņā ar Civildienesta noteikumu 10.a pantu Apvienotā komiteja tika aicināta 15 darbdienu laikā sniegt atzinumu,

IR NOLĒMIS ŠĀDI.

1. pants

Derīguma termiņš rezerves sarakstiem:

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S

tiek pagarināts līdz 2014. gada 31. decembrim.

2. pants

Derīguma termiņš rezerves sarakstiem:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S

netiek pagarināts.

Luksemburgā, 2013. gada 20. decembrī

Ģenerālsekretārs

Klaus WELLE

---

(1)  OV L 56, 4.3.1968., 1. lpp.

1

(2)  OV L 124, 27.4.2004., 1. lpp.

2

(3)  OV L 311, 26.11.2010., 1. lpp.

3

---
#### National Bronx Bank of New York, Appellant, *v.*United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Respondent.

Argued March 1, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*702
      *Meyer Levy*for appellant.

*Adrian P. Burke*and *William J. McArthur*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### Carmen M. MANZANEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SETERUS, INC.; Samuel I. White, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1767

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 27, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

*282Carmen M. Manzaneda, Appellant Pro Se. Aubrey Michele Cross, Lisa Hudson Kim, SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carmen M. Manzaneda appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action alleging breach of contract and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have reviewed the record and-find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Manzaneda v. Seterus, Inc.,*No. 1:16-cv-01216-LMB-JFA, 2017 WL 2274329 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2017). 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*
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dawn Lepore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

March 15, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5807 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5807

To amend the Bank Service Company Act to permit the appropriate Federal 
 banking agencies to coordinate examinations of bank service companies 
          with State banking agencies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2016

  Mr. Duffy (for himself, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Meeks) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Bank Service Company Act to permit the appropriate Federal 
 banking agencies to coordinate examinations of bank service companies 
          with State banking agencies, 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 ``Bank Service Company Examination 
Coordination Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. EXAMINATION BY STATE BANKING AGENCIES.

    The Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 1(b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) the term `State banking agency' has the meaning 
        given the term `State bank supervisor' under section 3 of the 
        Federal Deposit Insurance Act.''; and
            (2) in section 7--
                    (A) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``other 
                Federal banking agency'' the following: ``or a State 
                banking agency''; and
                    (B) in subsection (c), by inserting after ``Federal 
                banking agency'' the following: ``or a State banking 
                agency''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6983 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 538
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6983

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

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

                           September 25, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, as the ``Nell Patten 
                        Roquemore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. NELL PATTEN ROQUEMORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Nell Patten Roquemore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Nell 
Patten Roquemore Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 538

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6983

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, as the ``Nell Patten 
                        Roquemore Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 25, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Patricia BAUERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BAUERLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15544

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Patricia Bauerle, Pro Se

Sidney F. Wolitzky, Law Offices of Sidney F. Wolitzky, Tueson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Gregory A. Smith

Christopher M. Pastore, Esquire, Ogle-tree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak *&*Stewart PC, *612Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee International Business Machines Corporation

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia B.auerle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Barrett v. Belleque,*544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bauerle’s action as frivolous because Bauerle’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact; the “term ‘frivolous’ ... embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); *Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,*864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff cannot possibly win relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in . dismissing Bauerle’s third amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is' proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Bauerle’s motion to file a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No.' 22.

International Business Machines Corporation’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in its answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a separate motion for attorney’s fees and bill of costs.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R0507 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R0507

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2002 of 21 March 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2331/97 on special conditions for granting export refunds on certain pigmeat products **

*
Official Journal L 079 , 22/03/2002 P. 0012 - 0013 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2002

of 21 March 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 2331/97 on special conditions for granting export refunds on certain pigmeat products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1365/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(12) and Article 22 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2331/97(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2882/2000(4), lays down quality criteria to be met for the granting of export refunds on certain pigmeat products.

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 488/2002(6), lists the pigmeat products on which export refunds may be granted.

(3) The product codes listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2331/97 must be brought into line with recent amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 and quality criteria must be set for products covered by CN codes 1602 41 10, 1602 42 10 and 1602 49 19.

(4) The Management Committee for pigmeat has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The entries relating to CN codes 1602 41 10, 1602 42 10 and 1602 49 19 in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2331/97 are hereby replaced by those set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply to export licences applied as from 8 April 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 March 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 156, 29.6.2000, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 323, 26.11.1997, p. 19.

(4) OJ L 333, 29.12.2000, p. 72.

(5) OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 76, 19.3.2002, p. 11.

ANNEX

>TABLE>