alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA L. CHAVEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GLORIA HENRY,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-15290

D.C. No. 05-cv-00490-OWW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Barbara L. Chavez appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 18 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-15290

Chavez contends that she is entitled to statutory tolling for the time that

elapsed between the denial of her first habeas petition in the Kern County Superior

Court and the filing of her second habeas petition in the California Court of

Appeal, as well as for the time between the denial of her second habeas petition

and the filing of her third habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. This

contention lacks merit. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.

2010) (per curiam) (petitioner not entitled to statutory tolling for gaps of 101 and

115 days between state court habeas filings).

Chavez further contends that her delay was explained and justified. This

contention fails. See Evan v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 200 (2006) (federal petition

timely only if properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral

review remained pending during relevant period); Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993,

998 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner not entitled to equitable tolling simply because he

remained in administrative segregation and had limited access to law library and

copy machine); Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (pro se

petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication by itself insufficient to warrant tolling); 

Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to

tolling for state petitions filed after federal time limitation has run). 
3 07-15290

We decline to consider Chavez’s unexhausted contentions that her delay was

reasonable because she needed additional time to develop her claims and that in

2004 she was operating under the guidance of Saffold v. Carey, 312 F.3d 1031,

1035-36 (9th Cir. 2002). See Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 694 n.9

(9th Cir. 2002). 

We construe Chavez’s additional argument as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 

22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999)

(per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
Jamel Lamond MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Tyrone Marquis TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2480

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 468 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 468

       Designating November 26, 2023, as ``Drive Safer Sunday''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 16 (legislative day, November 15), 2023

   Mr. Warnock (for himself and Mrs. Capito) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating November 26, 2023, as ``Drive Safer Sunday''.

Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the 
        United States;
Whereas every individual traveling on roads and highways needs to drive in a 
        safer manner in order to reduce deaths and injuries that result from 
        motor vehicle crashes;
Whereas, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
        wearing a seat belt saves more than 15,000 lives each year;
Whereas the Senate wants all people of the United States to understand the life-
        saving importance of wearing a seat belt and encourages motorists to 
        drive safely, not just during the holiday season, but every time they 
        get behind the wheel; and
Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is one of the busiest highway traffic days 
        of the year: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) encourages--
                    (A) high schools, colleges, universities, 
                administrators, teachers, primary schools, and 
                secondary schools to launch campus-wide educational 
                campaigns to urge students to focus on safety when 
                driving;
                    (B) national trucking firms--
                            (i) to alert employee drivers to be 
                        especially focused on driving safely on the 
                        Sunday after Thanksgiving; and
                            (ii) to publicize the importance of the day 
                        through use of Citizens Band radios and truck 
                        stops across the United States;
                    (C) clergies to remind their members to travel 
                safely when attending services and gatherings;
                    (D) law enforcement personnel to remind drivers and 
                passengers to drive safely, particularly on the Sunday 
                after Thanksgiving; and
                    (E) the people of the United States to use the 
                Sunday after Thanksgiving as an opportunity to educate 
                themselves about highway safety; and
            (2) designates November 26, 2023, as ``Drive Safer 
        Sunday''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022011EN.01000702.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Insolvency and Companies List) — United Kingdom) — BJ and OV, joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mr M, v Mrs M, MH, ILA, Mr M

(Case C-168/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(1) - Legislation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland making the exclusion, in principle in full and automatically, from the bankruptcy estate of pension rights accrued under a pension scheme dependent on prior registration of the pension scheme with the tax authorities - Application of that requirement in bankruptcy proceedings in respect of an EU citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to pursue a self-employed occupation in the United Kingdom on a permanent basis - That EU citizen’s pension rights accrued under a pension scheme established and tax approved in his home Member State - Inability to avail of the protection of exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of those pension rights - Application to those pension rights of a system of exclusion from the bankruptcy estate significantly less advantageous to the bankrupt)

(2022/C 11/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Insolvency and Companies List)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BJ and OV, joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mr M

Defendants: Mrs M, MH, ILA, Mr M

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State which makes, in principle, the full and automatic exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of pension rights accrued under a pension scheme dependent on the requirement that, at the time of the bankruptcy, the pension scheme concerned be tax approved in that Member State, where that requirement is imposed in a situation where an EU citizen, who had, prior to becoming bankrupt, exercised his right of free movement by moving permanently to that Member State for the purposes of pursuing a self-employed economic activity there, has pension rights accrued under a pension scheme established and tax approved in his home Member State, unless the restriction on freedom of establishment constituted by that national provision is justified in so far as it furthers an overriding reason relating to the public interest, is appropriate to ensure that the objective it pursues is achieved and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---
# C_2021278EN.01004602.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/46

---

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2021 — Electrodomésticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)

(Case T-328/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application of a declaratory nature - Application for directions to be issued - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 278/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Electrodomésticos Taurus, SL (Oliana, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 (Case R 2212/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Electrodomésticos Taurus and Shenzhen Aukey E-Business.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Electrodomésticos Taurus, SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Electrodomésticos Taurus, SL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.1
Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the Company for the period
ended June 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the  financial  condition  and results of  operation  of the  Company.  A signed
original of this written statement  required by Section 906 has been provided to
the  registrant  and will be retained by it and furnished to the  Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated August 14, 2003.                               By: /s/Patrick Herda
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Patrick Herda
                                                         Chief Executive Officer







                                       25
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract                               ( print page 106623)                            1164 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-950, K2025-950.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31153 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2021072EN.01001501.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v PR, TV

(Case C-631/20)

(2021/C 72/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: PR, TV

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# C_2021310EN.01002301.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Davide Groppi v EUIPO — Viabizzuno (Table lamp)

(Case T-187/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a table lamp - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2021/C 310/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Davide Groppi Srl (Piacenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Capra and V. Malerba, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Viabizzuno Srl (Bentivoglio, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 (Case R 126/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Viabizzuno and Davide Groppi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders David Groppi Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders David Groppi Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Patrick RICHARD, et al. v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al.

CA 18-371

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

January 9, 2019

Robert E. Landry, Kevin P. Fontenot, Scofield, Gerard, Pohorelsky, Gallaugher & Landry, 901 Lakeshore Drive, # 900, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 433-9436, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: CITGO Petroleum Corporation

Craig Isenberg, Kyle W. Siegel, Joshua O. Cox, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, LLC, 909 Poydras, Ste. 2400, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 589-9700, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: CITGO Petroleum Corporation

Marshall Joseph Simien, Jr., Simien Law Firm, One Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1110, Lake Charles, LA 70629, (337) 497-0022, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: CITGO Petroleum Corporation

Wells Talbot Watson, Jake D. Buford, Bagget, McCall, Burgess, Watson & Gaughan, 3006 Country Club Road, Lake Charles, LA 70605, (337) 478-8888, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Rickey Haley, Gardenia Amos, Sara Stevens, Bill Peltier, Linda Harris

Richard Elliott Wilson, Somer G. Brown, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, LLC, 723 Broad Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 436-6611, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Sara Stevens, Gardenia Amos, Linda Harris, Rickey Haley

Kirk Albert Patrick, III, Heath Savant, Donahue, Patrick & Scott, 450 Laurel St., Suite 1600, Baton Rouge, LA 70801, (225) 214-1908, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: R & R Construction, Inc.

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Billy Howard Ezell, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

PERRET, Judge.

For the reasons set forth in the companion and consolidated case hereto, *Arceneaux v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.* , 18-370 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/9/19), --- So.3d ----, the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees and against Appellant, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Appellant, CITGO Petroleum Corporation.

**AFFIRMED.**
Jeffrey Thomas LOGIUDICE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. US BANK TRUST, N. A., as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3088

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Anthony HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2630

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019

Anthony Hollis, Daytona Beach, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., and ORFINGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
JOINDER AGREEMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 12, 2004



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 JOINDER AGREEMENT 
  
 The undersigned hereby agrees, effective as of the date hereof, to become a party to that certain Operating Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of April 12, 2004 by and among Pioglobal First Russia, LLC (the “Company”), its Board of Directors, Pioglobal Omega, LLC, Andrei Uspensky, and any other unit holder, warrant holder or option holder who from time to time
becomes a party to the Agreement by execution of a Joinder Agreement. The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that the undersigned will be included within the meaning of the term “Restricted Unit Holder” as defined and used in the
Agreement. 
  
 As a condition to accepting the undersigned as a
Member and Restricted Unit Holder, as those terms are defined and used in the Agreement, the Company and the undersigned agree that Section 8.7(b) of the Agreement shall be amended with respect to the undersigned as follows: 
  
 The reference to “January 1, 2003” in Section 8.7(b) shall be replaced with
“the date of the grant of such Call Securities”. 
  

									
				
	May 19, 2004	 	 	 	 	 	/s/    ALEXANDER
CHERNYSHOV        
	 Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Alexander Chernyshov
 (Sign name on signature line and print name
legibly below signature.)

					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Address:
	 	 Moscow, Kizovogradskaya
 Str., 42/1/122

					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Telephone:
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Facsimile:
	 	 

  
 Acknowledged and agreed to:

  

			
	 PIOGLOBAL FIRST RUSSIA, LLC

		
	By:	 	/s/    DONALD H. HUNTER        
	 Name:
	 	Donald H. Hunter
	 Title:
	 	Vice President and Treasurer
# C_2022002EN.01003401.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — YG v Commission

(Case T-599/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of merits - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

(2022/C 2/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker, L. Radu Bouyon and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 in the 2019 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders YG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders YG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---
Thomas M. HARVEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GALILEO HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0153

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.