alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN RUSHING, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02026 (UNA) 

) 

N.A.A.C.P., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an accompanying application for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff is a resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has 

sued the N.A.A.C.P., though provides no address for the defendant. Preliminarily, the Local Rules 

of this court state: “[t]he first filing by or on behalf of a party shall have in the caption the name 

and full residence address of the party.” LCvR 5.1(c). For reasons explained below, the court 

will grant the IFP application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 8(a). 

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

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) 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 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). 

AUG 17 2021
Here, the complaint merely alleges that plaintiff “was discriminated against by the 

N.A.A.C.P. [from] 2004–2007[,]” and that plaintiff “asked for assistance, etc.[,] [b]ut was 

ignored[.]” Plaintiff goes on to state that an unspecified “violation against [plaintiff] was clear 

and on the record.” As a result, plaintiff seeks “110 trillion dollars.” The remainder of the 

complaint is incomprehensible. 

These ambiguous allegations fail to provide adequate notice of a claim. The causes of 

action, and authority relied upon, if any, are completely undefined. The pleading also fails to set 

forth allegations with respect to this court’s jurisdiction or venue, or a valid basis for an award of 

damages. In fact, it is unclear what actual damages, if any, plaintiff has suffered. While plaintiff 

mentions “discrimination,” there is no articulation of the specific circumstances, location, context, 

or type, of any discrimination allegedly endured, or even who committed the alleged wrongdoing.

The complaint, therefore, fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order of 

dismissal accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Date: August 17, 2021 /s/______________________ 

 EMMET G. SULLIVAN

 United States District Judge
Submitted December 21, 2016;

judgment of criminal forfeiture reversed, otherwise affirmed January 25, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*JOSEPH BYERS McWOODSON, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Jackson County Circuit Court

15CR03322; A159244

388 P3d 1251

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

*483PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges his conviction of unlawful delivery of heroin, ORS 475.850, and a judgment of criminal forfeiture, ORS 131.582. (Defendant does not challenge his unlawful possession of heroin conviction.) Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motions for a judgment of acquittal on the unlawful delivery and criminal forfeiture charges. We affirm the unlawful delivery of heroin conviction without further discussion and write only to reverse the judgment of criminal forfeiture. For that judgment, defendant reprises his contention made below that there was no evidence that linked the $274 defendant had in his possession when he was arrested to the unlawful delivery of heroin. *See*ORS 131.582(6) (“The court shall enter a judgment of criminal forfeiture if the forfeiture counsel proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the property for which forfeiture is sought is an instrumentality or the proceeds of the crime of conviction * * *.”). The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of criminal forfeiture. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of criminal forfeiture.

Judgment of criminal forfeiture reversed; otherwise affirmed.
# C_2021422EN.01003201.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/32

---

Action brought on 1 September 2021 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council

(Case T-536/21)

(2021/C 422/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Belaeronavigatsia (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 55); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 55);

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there is no factual justification for the contested acts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there is no factual justification for the contested acts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality on the basis that the contested act risks jeopardising the objective of safety in international aviation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality on the basis that the contested act risks jeopardising the objective of safety in international aviation.

---
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21                      PGI INCORPORATED                    PAGE 1 OF 1
----------                      ----------------
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                  ------------
<CAPTION>
                                       State of             Relationship
                                       --------             ------------
                                       Incorporation
                                       -------------
<S>                                    <C>                <C>
Sugarmill Woods, Inc.                  Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Sugarmill Woods Management, Inc.       Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Deep Creek Utilities, Inc.             Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Southern Woods, Incorporated           Florida              Wholly owned by
                                                          Sugarmill Woods, Inc.
Burnt Store Marina, Inc.               Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Punta Gorda Isles Sales, Inc.          Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Burnt Store Utilities, Inc.            Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Gulf Coast Credit Corporation          Florida              Wholly owned (1)
Sugarmill Construction, Inc.           Florida              Wholly owned by
                                                          Sugarmill Woods, Inc.

<FN>
---------------------------------------
(1) Included in the Company's consolidated financial statements.
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,656
<INVENTORY>                                     45,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,953
<PP&E>                                          18,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,602
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           760
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,707
<SALES>                                         55,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,067
<CGS>                                           46,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,047)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,153)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Louisiana EAVS Jurisdictions: 

64 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

2,830,594 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

594,612 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

483,961 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

266,821 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Online 38.5% 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 24.8% 

In Person 16.2% 

Mail, Email, Fax 15.2% 

Other 5.2% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

41.0% In-Person 

Election Day 

1,034,781 

73.4% 

Mail 

102,618 

7.3% 

In-Person 

Early 

272,260 

19.3% 

Other 

937 

0.1% 

Total Voting Locations8: 2,052 

Total Poll Workers9: 15,314 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

100.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

100.0% 

Scanners 

0.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

0.0% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

 Mail Ballots 

• 164,156 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 64.2% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 97.4% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 2.6% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Did not allow drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

✔ Ballot reconciliation 

audit 

-- Compliance/ 

procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

✔ Logic and accuracy 

testing 

-- Post-election 

tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00252 - CR THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLANT

V. DANIEL CABRAL

- TAPIA , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court Hale County , Texas Trial Court No. 2017C - 200 , Honorable Bill Coleman , Presiding



### October 11 , 2018 ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN , C.J. , and CAMPBELL and PARKER , JJ. Pending before this court is the State ’ s motion to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. The record reflects that the trial court granted appellee Daniel Cabral - Tapia ’ s motion to suppress the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and that the State timely filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions o f law. However , none were filed. In State v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696 , 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) , the Court of Criminal Appeals held that , “ [u]p on the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence , the trial court shall state its essential2

findings. ” There , the Court explained that the trial court ’ s refusal to state its findings and conclusions prevented the court of appeals from a meaningful review of the decision to grant or deny the motion to suppress. Id. at 698. Accordingly , we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.4. Upon remand , the trial court shall execute findings of fact and c onclusions of law as required by State v. Cullen , supra . So too shall it include its findings and conclusions in a supplemental clerk ’ s record and cause that record to be filed with this court . Because we must “ give precedence in [our] docket to an appea l filed ” by the State from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence , Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) , (f) (West 2018 ) , we set October 24 , 2018 , as the deadline by which the findings and conclusion s must be filed with this court. Should further time be needed to perform these tasks , th en same must be requested before October 24 , 2018. It is so ordered. Per Curiam
Do not publi sh.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,408,729
<SECURITIES>                                    99,185
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,436,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,743
<INVENTORY>                                  2,430,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,788,372
<PP&E>                                         275,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,141,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,159,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,981,681
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,141,782
<SALES>                                     18,872,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,872,556
<CGS>                                       13,670,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,861,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,063,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                   806,543
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,257,132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
# C_2022368EN.01002201.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-208/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---
# C_2022276EN.01000502.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2022 — CK v Familienkasse Bayern Nord

(Case C-284/22)

(2022/C 276/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CK

Defendant: Familienkasse Bayern Nord

Question referred

Must Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 (1)(in conjunction with Articles 18, 21 and 45 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a migrant worker who earns income which is subject to German income tax but who is not in a compulsory insurance relationship with the Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Employment Agency) and is not subject to unlimited income tax liability in Germany does not receive German child allowance?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliancefor Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C19, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C19

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Order entered August 27, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00566-CV

KELVIN SMITH AND ANGELIA SMITH, Appellants

V.

CONN APPLIANCES, INC. D/B/A CONN'S, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-14173

ORDER

In response to our July 30, 2015 order to file the reporter’s record or provide verification 

that no record exists or was requested, court reporter Vielica Dobbins has informed us that, 

although appellants requested a record, no reporter’s record was made of the two hearings held in 

the trial court. Because there is no reporter’s record and the clerk’s record has been filed, we 

ORDER appellants to file their brief no later than September 28, 2015. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30647 Summary Calendar

__________________

Israel Bryan Harris; Angela Marie Harris; and Ath ena Maria Harris, for and on behalf of her minor child, Crystal Lynn Harris, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus United States Air Forc e and United States Department of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3965)

______________________________________________

December 21, 1995

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs- appellants' Federal Tort Claims Act suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find2

tha t the district court correctly found that the F eres doctrine barred appellants' claim. The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons carefully and correctly set out in its order granting the defendants-appelle es' motion to dismiss. S ee also Schoemer v. United States , 59 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 1995 WL 588294 (U.S. Nov. 27, 1995).
AFFIRMED.