alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael J. JOHNEN, Petitioner, v. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; United States Department of the Army, Respondents.

No. 16-73427

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed February 26, 2018

Wendy Ellen Musell, Elisa Joanne Stewart, Attorneys, Stewart & Musell LLP, Stewart *&*Musell LLP, for Petitioner

Stephen Fung, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Jimmy McBirney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division—Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent United States Department of the Army

Malvina Winston, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Washington, DC, Lisa Powell, Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Amicus Curiae United States Office of Special Counsel

Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner . Michael Johnen alleges that *679the United States Department of the Army terminated him and barred him from his work site because he had made complaints that are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. In an opinion filed this date, pertaining to other issues, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. This disposition concerns only the question whether Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies with the Office of Special Counsel with respect to his oral complaint made to supervisors, on July 25, 2013, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3), so as to give the United States Merit Systems Protection Board jurisdiction over his appeal to that body. On de novo review, Daniels v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 832 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), we grant and remand.

Petitioner’s 2014 written complaint, fairly read, encompassed the oral complaint that Petitioner had made on July 25, 2013, to Deputy Garrison Commander Mark Hamelin and General Donna Williams, concerning nepotism. Petitioner stated that an Army official had engaged improperly in nepotism and had retaliated against him because he had opposed her actions. We conclude that the written complaint gave sufficiently detailed and clear notice and, thus, that the Board erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this claim. When the Board reconsiders this claim on remand, it also must reconsider the related evidentiary rulings that precluded evidence concerning the July 25, 2013 oral complaint and concerning nepotism and other related issues.

Petition DISMISSED as to the United States Merit Systems Protection Board; as to the United States Department of the Army, petition DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2022207EN.01004501.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/45

---

Action brought on 22 March 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-157/22)

(2022/C 207/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Karolien Dehaen (Schilde, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC –European Union trade mark No 2 148 799

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 972/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-10372.

#### Stevens *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6408

TYRESE D. HYLES,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.
MR. BRECKON, Warden,
Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv

- 00192

- NKM

- JCH )

Submitted : October 30, 2020 Decided: November 19, 2020

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Tyrese D. Hyles, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Anne Rumsey
, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Tyrese D. Hyles , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order d ismissing
without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his

conviction s and sentence by way of the savings c lause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

. Pursuant to

§ 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or sentence in a traditional writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention

. [S ection] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.

United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added)

. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added)

.
We have reviewed the record and find that Hyles’ claim s meet neither the Wheeler

test nor the Jones test. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

. Hyles v. Breckon , No. 7:19

- cv

- 00192

- NKM

- JCH (W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2020). We deny
Hyles’ motion to expedite as moot and dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2022244EN.01001901.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-222/22)

(2022/C 244/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Interested party: JF

Question referred

Must Article 5(3) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), (1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a foreign national who files a subsequent application is not normally to be granted asylum status if the risk of persecution is based on circumstances which the foreign national has created by his or her own decision since leaving his or her country of origin, unless the activities in question are permitted in Austria and it is established that those activities constitute the expression and continuation of convictions held in the country of origin?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS, THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                       814
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,214
<PP&E>                                          19,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,549
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,840
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,540
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,585
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (134)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     30
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 14
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        14
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Dallas County

Public Defender’s Office

 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., 9 th Floor, LB 2  Dallas, Texas 75207-4313  Phone: (214) 653-3550  Fax: (214) 653-3539  January 31, 2018

Lisa Matz, Clerk Court of Appeals, 5th District 600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75202

RE: Undre Jones v. State of Texas

Trial Court No.: F14-52314-V Appellate Court No.: 05-15-01012-CR

Certification of Compliance with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4

Dear Ms. Matz:

Pursuant to Rule 48.4, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that on July 31, 2017, I sent to Mr. Jones a copy of this Court’s opinion and judgment in the above-entitled and numbered cause along with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68. This notification was sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Jones at his last known address. This notification was returned as undeliverable. I have attached a copy of the front of the returned envelope showing that it was undeliverable.

On September 11, 2017, I re-sent the opinion and judgment, the notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68, and a copy of the motion for extension to file a petition for discretionary review I filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals on September 7, 2017, to Mr. Jones by regular mail. Please include this letter in the official papers in this cause.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Respectfully,

/s/ Julie Woods

J ulie Woods

Assistant Public Defender

Attachment cc: Dallas County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Section ACCEPTED
05-15-01012-CR
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS
1/31/2018 1:57 PM
LISA MATZ
CLERK
No. 11-9973.

#### Lazarov *v.*Kimmel et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023216EN.01004501.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-147/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ - Earlier German word mark PINAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Suspension of proceedings - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2023/C 216/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay, Konya, Türkiye) (represented by: M.E. López Camba and A.M. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee, M. Eberl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2022 (Case R 1148/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Yadex International GmbH for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Yadex International GmbH for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 29 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-138190) pertaining to Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 57 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-40937) and Amendment No. 388 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


April 1, 2014
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P") on Form S-3 of our report dated
February 29, 1996, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HL&P for the
year ended December 31, 1995 and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
Houston, Texas
January 21, 1997
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose De La Luz REYNA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40190 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 4, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose De La Luz Reyna, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose De La Luz Reyna has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief 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). Reyna has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Reyna’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 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.
Order entered December 4 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00754 - CV LOUELLA CLANTON, Appellant

V. MARKOSE K. MARKOSE, Appellee On Appeal from the County C ourt at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 18 - 00664 - A



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s November 30, 2018 motion requesting a sixty

- five day extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent that appellant sha ll file a brief by January 7 , 2019

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<PAGE> 1

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, Chief
Executive 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, to
my knowledge:

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

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


     Dated: March 30, 2011

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                            Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                           [LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]

                                 April 29, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

     Re:  PMT Services, Inc.
     Registration Statement on Form S-3

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We are acting as counsel to PMT Services, Inc., a Tennessee corporation 
(the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Act"), of 300,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock, 
$.01 par value per share (the "Shares"), to be sold by certain shareholders of 
the Company (the "Selling Shareholders") pursuant to the above captioned 
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement"). We have examined the 
Company's Amended and Restated Charter, as amended, its Bylaws as amended to
date, the record of shareholders, the record of proceedings of its shareholders
and directors, and the Registration Statement. We have also examined and relied
upon such records, documents and other instruments as in our judgment are
necessary or appropriate in order to express the opinions hereinafter set forth.

     Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares to be sold 
by the Selling Shareholders are duly and legally issued, fully paid and 
non-assessable.

     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the 
Registration Statement and further consent to the reference to us under the 
caption "Legal Matters" in the Prospectus included in the Registration 
Statement.

                                   Very truly yours,

                                   /s/ Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, PLLC