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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7367

HEYWARD EUGENE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP MCLEOD, Warden of Perry Correctional

Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-01-4017)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Heyward Eugene Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Heyward Eugene Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the

district court that Johnson has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See Johnson v. McLeod, No.

CA-01-4017 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 29, 2002; entered Aug. 30, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
# C_2022451EN.01002701.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/27

---

Order of the General Court of 4 October 2022 — Interfloat and GMB v Commission

(Case T-530/20) (1)

(2022/C 451/31)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---
# C_2021163EN.01003401.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/34

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2021 — KG v Parliament

(Case T-251/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Pension - Entitlement to the correction coefficient in the determination of pension rights - Refusal to adopt a position on the applicant’s request - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s letter of 30 August 2019 by which it refused to adopt a decision concerning the application of the correction coefficient in the future determination of the applicant’s pension rights and of the decision rejecting the complaint lodged against that letter and, secondly, compensation for the non-material harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Ruben VAN DYKE

NO. 2018-KO-0622

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.
#### Carter Bloodgood, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

En Banc.

Opinion Filed October 12, 1927.

*Tom Walden,*Attorney for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred E. Davis,*Attorney General, and *E. E. Carter,*Assistant, Attorneys for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in error was convicted under the third count of an information charging him with the *640crime of being accessory before the fact of the larceny of a Ford automobile. The only assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant motion for a new trial. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that there was no evidence to support the verdict rendered by the jury.

It is well settled that where there is substantial.evidence to support the verdict of the jury and there is no showing that the verdict of the jury was influenced by anything outside the evidence, this Court will not reverse the judgment, although the record shows conflicting evidence, and although the jury under all the evidence might reasonably have arrived at some other verdict.

In this case, however, a careful consideration of the record discloses no evidence sufficient to constitute a basis for the verdict rendered. And, therefore, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the judgment which was entered against the defendant upon the evidence as shown by the record and it is so ordered.

Eeversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Timothy GAUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1386

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter SCHMITZ, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2054

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Mihaela Cabulea, Curt Allen, and Anthony J. Russo, of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.

Matthew G. Struble and Christine M. Deis, of Struble, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Having concluded, after full briefing, that the nonfinal order under review effectively is an order briefly staying the underlying action and not, as argued by Appellant, one granting injunctive relief, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See**Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. L.D.* , 840 So.2d 432, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (recognizing that an order staying a proceeding is not an appealable nonfinal order (citing *1143*Perry v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.* , 379 So.2d 429, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ) ). We also decline to sua sponte grant certiorari relief.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice to either party addressing the merits of the order in a final appeal.

DISMISSED.

EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Randal BOUDREAUX v. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INS. CO., et al.

NO. 2018-C-2005

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,729-01

EX P ARTE DONALD MILLER BALL , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2012-0434-A IN THE 217 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM ANG ELINA COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child and was sentenc ed to twenty

five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Twe lfth Court of Appea ls dismi ssed the appeal. Ball v. Stat e , No. 12-13-00190- CR (Te x. A

p p . — T y le r Aug . 20, 2014)(not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant raises eig ht g rounds in his application. The district cler k proper ly forwa

rded this applica t i o n t o t his Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, the application was forwa

rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. We

rema nd this application to the trial court to complete its evidentiar y investiga tion and make finding s2

of fa ct and c onclusions of law. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient and Applicant would have insisted on a t ri al but for counsel’s alleg ed defic ient perf

ormanc e. The trial court sha ll also make finding s reg arding whether false testimony

was prese nted during the punishment he aring , and if so, whether such testimony was materia l. Ex parte W einstein , 421 S.W .3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). T h e trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. The trial court s h all make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, p roposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: J anuar

y 15, 2020 Do not publish
# C_2021035EN.01002501.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2020 — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre and Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

(Case C-525/20)

(2021/C 35/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association France Nature Environnement

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) be interpreted as permitting Member States, when authorising a programme or project, not to take into account their temporary, short-term impacts on surface water status which are without lasting consequences? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) be interpreted as permitting Member States, when authorising a programme or project, not to take into account their temporary, short-term impacts on surface water status which are without lasting consequences?

| 2. | If so, what conditions should those programmes and projects meet for the purposes of Article 4 of that directive and in particular paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what conditions should those programmes and projects meet for the purposes of Article 4 of that directive and in particular paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

---
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 FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal 1st Quarter 2005 ending November 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul G. AndersonPaul G. Anderson Chief Executive Officer February 28, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 17, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-10820

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00121-HLA-JRK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISAIAH WADE,

 Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 17, 2011)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clyde M. Collins, Jr., appointed counsel for Isaiah Wade, in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because independent examination of the entire

record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Wade’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
Rolando Crespin AYALA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3263

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 28, 2019]

V.J. Benincasa of Benincasa Law Firm, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.16


                                  Bill of Sale

The purchaser,  Calumet Mining Company, ("Grantee") an Idaho Corporation with an
address at 1519 Main Street, Suite 169, Hilton Head Island, SC, hereby purchases
from Trend Mining Company, a Delaware Corporation ("Grantor") with an address at
401 Front Avenue,  Suite 1, Coeur d'Alene,  Idaho, the mining property  commonly
called the "Pyramid  Mine"  consisting of five  unpatented  mining  claims,  and
located in Sections 10 and 11, T. 14 N. R. 29 E., Churchill County, Nevada.

Interest Conveyed:  Grantor conveys the interest and obligations of the property
created,  obtained,  and sustained by virtue of location of the said  unpatented
mining claims.

Purchase Price:  The purchase price for said  unpatented  mining claims shall be
50,000  (Fifty  Thousand)  shares  of the $.01  par  value  common  stock of the
Grantee. Such shares shall bear a restricted legend.

Royalty:  Grantor  will retain an 1 1/2 (one and one half  percent)  Net Smelter
Return production royalty interest in the above defined mining property.

Agreed and accepted this 12th day of November, 2001.




Grantor:                                         Grantee:

/s/ Kurt Hoffman                                 /s/ John Ryan
Kurt Hoffman, President                          John Ryan, President
Trend Mining Company                             Calumet Mining Company
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:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# 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 697)                            1155 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-940, K2025-941.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31717 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 9 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 10 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 11 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 12 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 13 of 14

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 24    Filed 10/25/24    Entered 10/25/24 12:45:24    Desc MainDocument      Page 14 of 14
# C_2022418EN.01001801.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/18

---

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

(Case T-217/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Rural Development - Key controls - Flat-rate financial corrections - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration)

(2022/C 418/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and E.-E. Krompa, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and M. Kaduczak, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Hellenic Republic seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/201 of 12 February 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 42, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
Zaven KAZANDJIAN and Marie Kazandjian, Appellants, v. David VASTOLA, D.O. and Your Good Health Medical Group, P.A. a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3494

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - oregon(1)

## By Year

MOUs        June 3, 2005        MOU between the USGS and Clean Beaches Council

Podcasts        August 16, 2011        A Study in Stream Ecology

Podcasts        August 8, 2011        2011: The Year of the Flood

Podcasts        October 26, 2008        Earthquakes? Don't Freak Out--ShakeOut!
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE: § CHAPTER 13

§

RADESHA THURAISINGHAM §

§

§

DEBTOR(S) § CASE NO.: 23-42519

NOTICE OF SATISFACTION OF CLAIM

TARRANT COUNTY - CLAIM #1

Now comes Tarrant County, a secured creditor herein, and notifies the Court and all other

parties that it is filing this Notice of Satisfaction of Claim (and any amended claims thereafter filed by the 

taxing entity) as the balance of the Claim has been paid in full by the Debtor. Therefore, it is no longer 

necessary for the Trustee to pay on this claim in any plan or plan to be confirmed in this Chapter 13 

proceeding. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP

 2777 N Stemmons Freeway Suite 1000

Dallas, TX 75207

 (214) 880-0089 - Telephone

 (469) 221-5003 – Fax

 Lisa.Evans@lgbs.com

 /s/Lisa Large Evans, Attorney

 Lisa Large Evans

 Bar No. 24036379 TX

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 15th day of November, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was filed with the Court and served via the Court’s electronic noticing system upon all parties 

thereto accepting such and a copy of such was emailed to the pro se debtor, at his email address of 

radeshathuraisingham@gmail.com, and mailed, via first class mail, postage prepaid to the debtor at his address 

of 1712 Baird Farm Circle, #2213, Arlington, TX 76006, on November 16, 2023.

/s/Lisa Large Evans, Attorney

 

Case 23-42519-elm13 Doc 47 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:01:48 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1