alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1585

WYMON GRIFFIN,

Claimant - Appellant,

and

WILMA OLIPHANT; BERNICE HOWIE; BERTHA ANDERSON; RUTH COLEMAN; PAMELA BENNETT; KIM WALLACE; RANDY TUCKER; ROBERTA SASPORTAS; ANITA

SINGLEY; CHARLES NORWOOD; LULA B. MILLER;

EVELYN ALEXANDER; YVONNE SESSOMS; BERTHA

CHISHOLM; LILIE ANN STEWART; ANTWERP DUNCAN;

MILDRED GLENN; CHARLOTTE CHAPTER OF THE OLD

NORTH STATE MEDICAL, DENTAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL

SOCIETY; TERRY RAGIN,

Plaintiffs,

versus

CHARLOTTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-78-326-C-C-MU, CA-78-370-C-C-MU)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wymon Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. John Oliver Pollard, David Lee

Terry, BLAKENEY & ALEXANDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the Special Master's Report: Final Findings and Recommendations Concerning

the Stage II Claim of Wymon Griffin, and denying Appellant's motion

to vacate the order of reference to the special master. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the Special Master and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial Hosp. & Medical Ctr., Nos. CA-78-326-

C-C-MU; CA-78-370-C-C-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1997). 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
3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7332

MARVIN LEON GRIMM, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director VA. Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00593-JRS)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 5, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson 

Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

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

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

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

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

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Grimm has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny the motions for a certificate of appealability and for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Mazal S. Siso et al., Appellants, v Jack Tawil et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[769 NYS2d 384]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J), dated May 13, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Jack Tawil and Olga Tawil for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

*829Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff Mazal Siso (hereinafter Mazal) was injured in 1987 while visiting her grandparents in an apartment they rented from the defendants Jack Tawil and Olga Tawil (hereinafter collectively the Tawils). At the time of the accident, Mazal, who was then one year old, was moving about the apartment in a walker while a meal was being prepared in the kitchen. A pot of hot water had been placed on the kitchen counter, with its electrical cord hanging down and plugged into an outlet located near the floor. According to her grandmother, Mazal pulled the pot’s cord “like a toy,” and the contents of the pot spilled on her, causing severe burns. In the action at bar, the plaintiffs contend that the Tawils were negligent in failing to provide an electrical outlet above the kitchen counter, rather than at floor level, and that this negligence was the cause of Mazal’s injuries.

The Supreme Court properly granted the Tawils’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The evidence presented by the Tawils established as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Mazal’s accident. While the placement of the outlet at floor level may have created the occasion for the accident, the infant plaintiffs injuries were caused by an intervening act which was not foreseeable *(see Martinez v Lazaroff,*48 NY2d 819 [1979]; *Rivera v City of New York,*11 NY2d 856 [1962]; *Tigulla v Porzio,*255 AD2d 504 [1998]; *Wells v Finnegan,*177 AD2d 893 [1991]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to offer evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to proximate cause.

In view of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5920.

#### Tyrone Drummond, Petitioner v. Delaware.

562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 418,

178 L. Ed. 2d 326,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8226.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.

Same case below, 992 A.2d 1236.
No. D-2490.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of Robert C. Arledge.

562 U.S. 999, 131 S. Ct. 555,

178 L. Ed. 2d 410,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8449.

November 1, 2010.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 561 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 43, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1132, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5625.
No. 10-5794.

#### Danny O. Daniels, Petitioner v. District Court of Colorado, Arapahoe County, et al.

562 U.S. 967, 131 S. Ct. 467,

178 L. Ed. 2d 297,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7991.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

*298Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 851.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7147
CHRISTOPHER T. JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; RICK JACKSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00220) Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher T. James, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher T. James appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on both his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. SeeJames v. North Carolina , 3:06-cv-00220 (W.D.N.C. May 17, 2006 & June 19, 2006). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mario Armond, Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 19]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered March 4, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years; and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 21, 2016, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence, and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony. The jury could have readily rejected, as implausible, the defense theory that the incident was a larceny and not a robbery. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments relating to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without holding a hearing (see *People v Samandarov,*13 NY3d 433, 439-440 [2009]). Based on the submissions on the motion, as well as the trial record, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant cites counsel’s failure to conduct an investigation of the victim (a taxi driver), which would have revealed a case before the Taxi and Limousine Commission imposing sanctions on the victim in connection with a car accident. However, defendant has not shown that this deficiency rose to the level of depriving defendant of a fair trial or affecting the outcome of the case. This lone incident, resulting only in civil sanctions, was unlikely to have had a significant impact in impeaching the victim’s general credibility.

The court also properly rejected the branch of the CPL 440.10 motion claiming that the People violated their obligations *576under *Brady v Maryland*(373 US 83 [1963]) by failing to disclose the above-discussed potential impeachment material. There was no showing that this information was in the People’s “custody, possession, or control” *(People v Garrett,*23 NY3d 878, 886 [2014]), or that such knowledge should be imputed to them. The submissions on the motion satisfactorily refute defendant’s claim that a remark by the prosecutor during jury selection demonstrated her knowledge of this information.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
No. 10-5151.

#### Gwen Bittan, Petitioner v. Hawaii Department of Human Services.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 814,

178 L. Ed. 2d 548,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9487.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 250, 178 L. Ed. 2d 166, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7138.
# Troop Support employee honored at retirement ceremony

/ Published Oct. 26, 2022
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support celebrated the career of a civilian employee during a retirement ceremony Oct. 24, in Philadelphia.

Barbara P. Miller, a tailored vendor logistics specialist with the Subsistence supply chain, retired after 41 years of service.

DLA Troop Support’s new Deputy Commander Kishayra Lambert presided over the ceremony, and said it was an honor and a privilege for her to officiate Miller’s retirement.

“This is my first time, as deputy commander, officiating a civilian retirement ceremony here at Troop Support,” she said. “And I must say, it is truly a privilege to be able to recognize someone who has had such an extensive career.”

Miller began her career in 1981, in the Medical Emergency Supply Operations Center, where she was responsible for supplying emergency medical items to military personnel in the United States and overseas.

After 19 years in the ESOC, she was promoted to the Industrial Hardware supply chain’s integrated prime vendor section, where she supplied aircraft repair parts to the military, before transitioning to supply planning and managing stock levels of the parts.

In Subsistence, Miller was responsible for garrison feeding in the U.S. Southeast region, which also supported schools and Native American tribes in southern California.

“Your service is indelibly marked in our record of success,” Lambert said. “Those years are characterized by the excellence embodied in the reputation of DLA Troop Support. For that, I am truly grateful.

“And I am not alone in my appreciation,” she continued. “Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast guardsmen and guardians get what they need when they need it because of the work you have done. Barbara, please accept my gratitude for all that you have done in service to our nation, the Defense Logistics Agency and most importantly, the men and women of our military.”

During the ceremony Miller was presented a certificate of retirement, a retirement memento, a pin of recognition, as well as a star note and commander’s coin from DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley. Miller’s husband Brian was also presented with a commander’s spouse certificate of appreciation.

“I enjoyed and am proud of my 40-plus years of DoD service,” Miller said. “I took pride in supporting the warfighter, as my father and father-in-law were veterans and I knew they would be proud of me and my dedication to my responsibilities.

“Along the way I met and cultivated lifelong friendships, which was a wonderful perk of this career. I could have never done my work without the support of my husband and mom, who cared for my son’s during contingency efforts.”

Miller said after retiring, she plans on spending more time with her two grandsons, travelling to Europe with her husband, volunteering and relaxing.
No. 10-6271.

#### Julian Solorio-Valdez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 973, 131 S. Ct. 489,

178 L. Ed. 2d 309,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7909.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 576.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.333-146483-03, 333-108416, 333-103515 and 

333-85486 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 14, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

March 14, 2008
# Energy Convergence program concludes, legacy system decommissioned

/ Published Oct. 8, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,       - Oil Enterprise Downstream/Oracle Government Financials
      - The Fuels Enterprise Server
      - Paperless Ordering Receipts Transaction Screens
      - The Defense Fuels Automated Management System/Automated Voucher Examination Disbursing System
      - The Requirements Manager Suite
      - The Web Distribution Planning Authority
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34679-34680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16955]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss general aviation operations issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 14, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Helicopter Association 
International, 1635 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Noreen Hannigan, Regulations Analyst, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-106), 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: (202) 
267-7476; FAX: (202) 267-5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to discuss general aviation operations issues. This meeting will be 
held on July 14, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. at the Helicopter Association 
International, 1635 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
    The agenda for this meeting will include:
    (1) A status report on the Part 103 (Ultralight Vehicles) Working 
Group's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on ``Sport Pilot 
Certification Requirements'' (and possible request for ARAC approval of 
draft for submission to the FAA for legal and economic review (copies 
may be obtained by contacting the person listed under For Further 
Information Contact));
    (2) Discussion of overflights of national parks;
    (3) Other general aviation topics (open discussion).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but may be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements in advance to 
present oral statements at the meeting or may present written 
statements to the committee at any time. In addition, sign and oral 
interpretation can be made available at the meeting, as well as an 
assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days before the 
meeting. Arrangements may be made by

[[Page 34680]]

contacting the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 1998.
Katherine Hakala,
Acting Assistant Executive Director for General Aviation Operations, 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 98-16955 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
No. 10-7118.

#### Aileen Centeno, Petitioner v. Rhoda A. Winstead, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Cambridge Springs, et al.

562 U.S. 1095, 131 S. Ct. 803,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9536.

178 L. Ed. 2d 537,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2016048EN.01009002.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/90

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-104/13)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Report of the Investigation Panel - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint - Annulment - Action for compensation))

(2016/C 048/101)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, on the one hand, of the letter of the President of the EIB by which he firstly failed to adopt any measure concerning the psychological harassment suffered by the applicant for 20 years; secondly, justified all the facts complained of and, thirdly, requires the applicant to work with a ‘mentor’ and ‘business partner’ and, on the other, the opinion of the ‘Dignity at work’ Panel of 14 March 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 29 April 2013 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 29 April 2013 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6803

ALPHONSO MARTIN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-96-2342-6-22AK)

Submitted: February 10, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge on

Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing

to introduce evidence and failing to advise Appellant of his right

to appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court as to those claims. See Martin v. Beardsley,

No. CA-96-2342-6-22AK (D.S.C. May 20, 1997).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation

denying his claims that: (1) counsel was ineffective for failing to

suppress his statement to the police; (2) the prosecutor withheld

evidence from the grand jury; and (3) the district court submitted

an improper jury instruction on self defense.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review
3

of the above claims by failing to file specific objections after

receiving proper notice. 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.

DISMISSED
#### People v Lewis (Gil)

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 571 (NY)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)
No. 10-531.

#### Kristopher Courtney, Petitioner v. Ohio.

562 U.S. 1092, 131 S. Ct. 803,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9569.

178 L. Ed. 2d 532,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, denied.