alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Madeline Yvette DAVIS, Debtor. Madeline Yvette Davis, Appellant, v. Bank of America, N.A., Appellee.

No. 17-60058

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Madeline Yvette Davis, Pro Se

Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appel-lee

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Madeline Yvette Davis appeals pro se from the judgment of the *498Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Davis’s adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Davis’s adversary proceeding because Davis lacks standing to pursue claims that are property of the bankruptcy estate. *See*11 U.S.C. § 323; *Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen),*31 F.3d 1447, 1451 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994) (Chapter 7 trustee is the-representative of the debtor’s estate, and therefore the only party with standing to administer estate assets); *Canatella v. Towers (In re Alcala),*918 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir. 1990) (causes of action which accrued before a Chapter 7 petition is filed are part of the estate vested in the trustee).

To the extent Davis seeks to appeal the order granting relief from the automatic stay, we lack jurisdiction to review it. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); *Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,*476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

The parties’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2022432EN.01000602.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2022 — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

(Case C-460/22)

(2022/C 432/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

Questions referred

Is an undertaking which provides electronic communications services on the relevant market, but which did not participate in a given auction procedure (‘the auction procedure’) because it did not meet the requirements for participation established in the specifications laying down the detailed rules governing the auction procedure (‘the specifications’), as a result of which the decision of the national regulatory authority recording the outcome of the auction does not contain any provision relating to that undertaking, an undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and, in consequence, an undertaking entitled to exercise the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] against that decision?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

---
# C_2022128EN.01002601.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/26

---

Action brought on 22 January 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Piastrelle)

(Case T-40/22)

(2022/C 128/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Dado Ceramica Srl (San Giovanni in Persiceto, Italy), Antica Ceramica Rubiera Srl (Rubiera, Italy) and Star-Gres sp. z o.o. (Końskie, Poland) (represented by: A. Merlini and F. Carpi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Italcer SpA (Rubiera, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Piastrelle) — Community design No 6 581 245-0013

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2021 in Case R 1965/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity;

| — | in the alternative, after the annulment of the contested decision, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and issue appropriate directions regarding the oral phases of the procedure and the admission of new and highly relevant documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, after the annulment of the contested decision, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and issue appropriate directions regarding the oral phases of the procedure and the admission of new and highly relevant documents;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the costs incurred by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
#### Willie Clay MEANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. HOLLAND, Warden; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7103

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 31, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Willie Clay Means, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Clay Means, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Means v. Holland,*No. 5:16-hc-02309-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 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*

*

 To the extent Means also seeks to appeal the district court’s December 27, 2017, order denying his motion to supplement, that order is not properly before us. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
Exhibit 10-B-4.1
       

                      AMENDMENT TO SERVICE AGREEMENT

THIS  AMENDMENT  ("Amendment")  is entered into this l5 day of May, 1996, by and
between  TRANSCONTINENTAL  GAS PIPE LINE  CORPORATION,  a Delaware  corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Seller",  first party, and PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
NORTH CAROLINA,  INC., a North Carolina Corporation,  hereinafter referred to as
"Buyer", second party.

                                   WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS,  Seller and Buyer are parties to that certain Service Agreement,  dated
August 5, 1974, under Seller's Rate Schedule LG-A ("Service Agreement") pursuant
to which Seller provides liquefied natural gas storage service for Buyer up to a
total volume of 25,000 Mcf of natural gas per day which is Buyer's  Liquefaction
Capacity Volume; and

WHEREAS,  Seller and Buyer now desire to extend the primary  term of the Service
Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE,  Seller and Buyer hereby agree to amend the Service  Agreement as
follows:

1. Article IV of the Service Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
   replaced by the following:

                                    ARTICLE IV
                                TERM OF AGREEMENT

This  agreement  shall be  effective  as of November 1, 1974 and shall remain in
force and effect until 8:00 a.m.  Eastern  Standard  Time October 31, 2016,  and
thereafter  until terminated by Seller or Buyer upon at least one hundred eighty
(180) days  prior  written  notice;  provided,  however,  this  agreement  shall
terminate  immediately and, subject to the receipt of necessary  authorizations,
if any,  Seller may  discontinue  service  hereunder  if (a) Buyer,  in Seller's
reasonable judgement fails to demonstrate creditworthiness,  and (b) Buyer fails
to provide adequate  security in accordance with Section 32 of the General Terms
and Conditions of Seller's Volume No 1 Tariff."

2. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first above written.

3. Except as herein  amended,  the Service  Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect pursuant to the terms thereof.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be signed
by their respective officers or representatives thereunto duly authorized.


TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE                        PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
 LINE CORPORATION ("Seller")                     NORTH CAROLINA, INC. ("Buyer")

By:   s/Frank J. Ferazzi                         By: s/Franklin H. Yoho
      Vice President                                 Senior Vice President-
      Customer Service                               Marketing & Gas Supply

                                                          66
<PAGE>
#### A. O. Lynch v. State.

155 So. 99.

Opinion Filed April 24, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied June 15, 1934.

*E. M. Norton,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

— In this case this Court finds itself unable to consider the arguments made in the brief of plaintiff in error as to the insufficiency of the information upon which the conviction appealed from was had, because there is before this Court no properly prepared transcript of the record filed here as required by the law and rules of this Court. While the brief of the Attorney General in effect concedes the insufficiency of the count of the information *600upon which plaintiff in error was sentenced, yet without something more than a certified copy of the information and judgment (which is all that is before us) this Court is without jurisdiction to reverse the judgment, even though it may appear to be erroneous.

The writ of error is accordingly dismissed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2022191EN.01002401.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against EV

(Case C-174/22)

(2022/C 191/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Party to the main proceedings

EV

Question referred

Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, which supplement the blanket provision of Article 354a of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) in conjunction with Article 3(4) of the Zakon za kontrol varhu narkotichnite veshtestva i prekursorite (Law on the control of narcotic substances and drug precursors), allow a person to be found guilty of possession of a category 3 substance as per Annex I, namely toluene in a quantity of two litres?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7885
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LEE ALKIRE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-92-219, CA-95-75-2) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Christopher Lee Alkire, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 Because this claim alleges infirmity in the manner of the execution of sentencing it would have been brought more properly under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988). The lack of substantive merit makes consideration of the claim under § 2255 harmless error. 2 The district court's mistake in commenting that the acts underlying the current convictions were accomplished entirely while Alkire was in prison is of no moment with regard to the substance of the decision. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher L. Alkire appeals from a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We affirm. Alkire's complaint that he is being moved to a federal prison outside West Virginia, where he has lived his entire life, is without merit. 1 18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(b) (West 1985 & Supp. 1995); cf. Meachumn v. Fano , 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). Alkire's complaint that the portion of the sentence restricting his use of a telephone while in prison is without merit; there is no constitutional or federal statutory right to use of a telephone while in prison. 2 Finally, even though the district court erred in not applying the federal sentencing guidelines with regard to whether service of the federal sentence should be concurrent with a now-expired state sentence, Alkire failed to raise this nonconstitutional claim on direct appeal and has failed to show cause and prejudice for the failure. Thus, Alkire waived the claim. Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). We affirm this portion of the district court order on this alternative basis.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2023271EN.01002802.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2023 — Corver v EUIPO (CHR ME)

(Case T-446/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CHR ME - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 271/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serge-Paul Corver (Lanaken, Belgium) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 March 2022 (Case R 2082/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Serge-Paul Corver and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Serge-Paul Corver and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---
#### Vahid ASRARI, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent

2017-1064

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 8, 2018

Rachel J. Elsby, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also represented by Ryan Stronczer; Steven D. Maslowski, Philadelphia, PA.

Zachary John Sullivan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Allison Kidd-Miller.

(O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

*895JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1326

KENNETH WAYNE DODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEFENSE

MAPPING AGENCY; DEIDRA HUNGERFORD, in her

official capacity at the Defense Mapping

Agency; KAREN GRUMBINE, in her official capacity at the Defense Mapping Agency; SANDRAL J.

DANIELL, in her official capacity at the Defense Mapping Agency; STEPHANIE BLACKSHEAR, in

her official capacity at the Defense Mapping

Agency; GRANDVILLE PETERSON, in his official

capacity at the Defense Mapping Agency; RUBY

THOMAS, in her official capacity at the

Defense Mapping Agency; JAMES BRUNGER, in his

official capacity at the Defense Mapping

Agency; MR. SMITH, Security Officer,

Defendants - Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-918-A)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 13, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice his employment discrimination action. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no

reversible error. Dodson failed to plead or prove that he had

exhausted administrative remedies or that those remedies were constitutionally deficient. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DAJUAN SAUNDERS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 890 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-554]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-290-001]


Michigan Gas Storage Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff and of Motion to Make Suspended Rates Effective

January 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 31, 1996, Michigan Gas Storage Company 
(MGS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets in compliance with 
the Commission's July 31, 1996 Order:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 5
Second Revised Sheet No. 34

    The Order required that MGS make certain changes to its filed 
tariff sheets, including eliminating costs associated with facilities, 
if any, not in service by December 31, 1996. MGS also tendered on 
December 31, 1996 its motion to make effective the rates originally 
filed in this docket (as modified in compliance with the Order) on 
January 1, 1997--the first day after the period for which the rates 
were suspended.
    MGS states that copies of the filing were served upon those on the 
service list, MGS's jurisdictional customers and the Michigan Public 
Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests must be 
filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-554 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11420-11421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-72-002]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, proposed to become 
effective December 1, 1996:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 37
Substitute Original Sheet No. 37A
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 39
Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 120

    ANR states that these tariff changes are being filed pursuant to 
the Commission's February 14, 1997 letter order in the captioned 
proceeding. The revised tariff sheets address the priority of Rate 
Schedule FTS-2 service during the ten (10) days each month that such 
service will not be scheduled as firm service.

[[Page 11421]]

    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6129 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022463EN.01001401.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/14

---

Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2021 in Case T-719/21, Correia de Matos v Commission

(Case C-79/22 P)

(2022/C 463/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos (represented by: C. Correia de Matos, advogado)

Other party: European Commission

By order of 20 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Mr Carlos Correia de Matos to bear his own costs.

---
No. 11-6494.

#### Ninham *v.*Wisconsin.

Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.