alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20414

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

SHAMARION LYNETTE GRAVES,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-354-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shamarion Lynette Graves appeals from the revocation of her probation. 

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Graves has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Graves has not filed a response. In revoking Graves’s 

probation, the district court imposed a six-month term of imprisonment and no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20414 Document: 00514435621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2018
No. 17-20414

2

term of supervised release. Prior to the filing of the FPD’s motion to withdraw, 

Graves was released from prison.

This appeal requires us to examine sua sponte the basis of our 

jurisdiction. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article 

III, Section 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual 

cases and controversies. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-orcontroversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury 

other than the now-ended incarceration or parole—some ‘collateral 

consequence’ of the conviction—must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. 

Because Graves has completed the entire sentence imposed for her probation 

revocation, there is no case or controversy for us to address. See id. at 8; United 

States v. Hines, 425 F. App’x 343 (5th Cir. 2011).

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and the 

FPD’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

 Case: 17-20414 Document: 00514435621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2018
Felicia PARKER v. GREATER GADSDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY

2160515

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3769

___________ George Brown, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Lonnie Salts, Lt.; Joe Rosenburg, Sgt.; * Appeal from the United States Michael Bowersox, Supt.; Bradley W. * District Court for the Gibson, Sgt.; Greg Conway, Lt.; * Eastern District of Missouri. Timothy E. Pettus, Sgt.; Charles * Chandler, Officer; Mark S. Browers, * [UNPUBLISHED] CO 1; Robert Rector; Marilyn * Rosenberg; Cindy Brewer, also known * as Cindy Aldridge, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 27, 1999 Filed: June 10, 1999

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________1 TheHonorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. -2- PER CURIAM. George Brown appeals the district court’s 1 order granting summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he claimed that various defendants conspiredto assault him, used excessive force in moving him to another cell, failed to take corrective action, and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Upon de novo review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude summary judgment was proper. We also reject as meritless Mr. Brown’s additional arguments on appeal that thedistrict court erred by considering his deposition, refusing to appoint him counsel, not ordering him to amend his complaint, and refusing him a continuance to obtain affidavits. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

VS.

LINDA TATUM,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:03-CR-159(01)-G

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this

case, and the findings and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

dated October 13, 2011, the court finds that the findings and recommendation of the

magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and

recommendation of the court. 

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the findings and recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

December 5, 2012.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:03-cr-00159-G Document 129 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 508
Case 2:98-cv-00340-J Document 97 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 361
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 187-188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31766]



                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 187]]

                Executive Order 14133 of December 30, 2024

                
Providing for the Closing of Executive 
                Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on 
                January 9, 2025

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

                Section 1. All executive departments and agencies of 
                the Federal Government shall be closed on January 9, 
                2025, as a mark of respect for James Earl Carter, Jr., 
                the thirty-ninth President of the United States.

                Sec. 2. The heads of executive departments and agencies 
                may determine that certain offices and installations of 
                their organizations, or parts thereof, must remain open 
                and that certain employees must report for duty on 
                January 9, 2025, for reasons of national security, 
                defense, or other public need.

                Sec. 3. January 9, 2025, shall be considered as falling 
                within the scope of Executive Order 11582 of February 
                11, 1971, and of 5 U.S.C. 5546 and 6103(b) and other 
                similar statutes insofar as they relate to the pay and 
                leave of employees of the United States.

                Sec. 4. The Director of the Office of Personnel 
                Management shall take such actions as may be necessary 
                to implement this order.

                Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order 
                shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or 
the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

                    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with 
                applicable law and subject to the availability of 
                appropriations.

[[Page 188]]

                    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, 
                create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 
                enforceable at law or in equity by any party against 
                the United States, its departments, agencies, or 
                entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any 
                other person.
                
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    December 30, 2024.

[FR Doc. 2024-31766
Filed 1-2-25; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P
```
Arthur Terry HOCKADAY v. STATE

CR-16-0464

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
# C_2022418EN.01002002.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OQ v Commission

(Case T-713/20) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 (AD 7) - Croatian-language lawyer-linguists at the Court of Justice of the European Union - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Conditions for admission - Condition relating to a level of education corresponding to a full course of university studies leading to qualifications in Croatian law - Possession of French qualifications in law - Freedom of movement for workers - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 418/25)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: OQ (represented by: R. Štaba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, R. Mrljić and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 3 September 2020 not to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of Croatian-language lawyer-linguists for the Court of Justice of the European Union. The applicant also seeks annulment of the rejection of his request for review of that decision, adopted by decision of the selection board of 12 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the competition selection board of 12 October 2020 rejecting OQ’s request for review and refusing to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of ‘Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ for the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the competition selection board of 12 October 2020 rejecting OQ’s request for review and refusing to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of ‘Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ for the Court of Justice of the European Union;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OQ. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OQ.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
Exhibit 32.1  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 Quarterly Report of Great American Family Parks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry Eastland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and will be retained by Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  November 20, 2006  /s/ Larry EastlandLarry EastlandChief Executive Officer
John A. DITULLIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-225

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021481EN.01002801.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)

(Case T-637/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLITE - Late payment of the appeal fee - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restitutio in integrum)

(2021/C 481/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 (Case R 1015/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---
Jose Angel PAMBLANCO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-566

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 4, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 on Form 20-F of Videsh Sanchar NigamLimited, a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of India (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s best knowledge, that: 

 

1. the Report fully complies, in all material respects, withthe 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 ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. 

 

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose. 

 

Date: September 30, 2005
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17

- 14489

Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:17

- cv

- 61265

- BB

DENNIS HAYNES,

individually,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

vers us

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Delaware Corporation,

Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 11, 2018) Case: 17-14489 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 Page: 1 of 22 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district cour t’s judgment is VACATED and REMANDED for

re consideration in light of Haynes v. Hooters of Am., LLC , No. 17

- 13170, ___

F.3d ___, 2018 WL 3030840 (11th Cir. 2018).

Case: 17-14489 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2019065EN.01003401.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/34

---

Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — QC v European Council

(Case T-834/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 - Press release - Notion of ‘international agreement’ - Identification of the author of the act - Scope of the act - Meeting of the European Council - Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union - Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country - First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction))

(2019/C 65/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: QC (represented by: C. Ladis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council (represented by: S. Boelaert, M.-M. Joséphidès and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of an alleged agreement concluded between the European Council and the Republic of Turkey dated 18 March 2016 and entitled ‘EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016’ and, secondly, application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the European Council unlawfully failed to take measures.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | QC and the European Council shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

QC and the European Council shall bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 21, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00444

- CR

IN RE Robert Anthony WARDEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On September 10, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining

of the trial court’s refusal to rule on his post

- conviction motion for DNA/Scientific testing. On October 2, 2020, the trial court provided this court with a copy of its October 2, 2020, order denying relator’s “Motion for Post

- Conviction DNA Scientific Testing. ” Because relator has received the requested relief, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 52.8(a). All other requested relief is denied.

It is so ORDERED on October 21, 2020

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of October, 2020

.

_________________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 14

- 022

- CR

- C, styled State of Texas v. Robert Anthony Warden , pending in the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable William D. Old, III presiding.
Brandon Trenell ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Bruce Frederic NATHAN, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4311

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 14, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019

Bruce Frederic Nathan, pro se, Appellant.

Bradley R. McVay, Interim General Counsel, and Ashley E. Davis, Deputy General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellee's suggestion of mootness, filed on December 5, 2018, and Appellant's response thereto, the appeal is dismissed as moot. *See e.g.**Tyler v. Peacock* , 98 Fla. 981, 124 So. 463 (Fla. 1929) ; *Voelz v. Obama* , 134 So.3d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Makar, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
1/4-/5"

COA# 08-12-00065-CR OFFENSE: OTHER CRIMINAL

Fernando Magalde v. The

STYLE: State of Texas COUNTY: El Paso

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 120th District court

DATE: 3/28/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #.- 20110D05035

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Fernando Magalde v. The State

STYLE: of Texas

?&Q £E Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: eilzHjir

JUDGE: AL^-v jj(M*

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:.

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0651 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. REX WILLIAM ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 24 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 18 2023

10/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0651
EX PARTE Freeman SMITH

CR-16-1134

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct.
Exhibit 32.2  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 Quarterly Report of Digital Network International Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Eppie Wong, CFO and a director 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  __/s/ Eppie Wong____________
Eppie Wong, CFO and a director April 17, 2008
Chad M. STEVENS v. Leslie M. TRIPPE

2160555

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.