alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3702

___________

Rolf A. Rosendahl, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

Margie Bontz; Fum; David Moore; * District of Missouri.

John Doe, CO II; Does, A-Z, *

inclusive, in their individual and or * [UNPUBLISHED]

their official capacities herein; Jesse *

Montemayor; Michael J. Carter; *

Terry Wynne; Darin Morgan; *

Richard Spackler, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 6, 2001

 Filed: July 24, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Missouri inmate Rolf A. Rosendahl appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various Western

Missouri Corrections Center employees. Mr. Rosendahl claimed that defendants (1)

retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and grievances by issuing him false conduct

violations and placing him in administrative segregation, (2) denied him access to the

courts by seizing and storing his legal materials, and (3) violated his free speech rights

by opening an envelope containing a letter he wrote and then punishing him for the

letter’s contents. 

Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm for the reasons explained by the

district court. See Davis v. Norris, 249 F.3d 800, 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(“Prisoners’ First Amendment rights may be circumscribed if legitimate penological

objectives outweigh preservation of their rights.”); Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939

(8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.

1997) (there is no § 1983 liability based on prison officials’ violation of prison policy;

inmate must prove constitutional-right violation); Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d 1188, 1191

(8th Cir. 1996) (to avoid liability on inmate’s retaliatory-discipline claim, defendants

must simply prove there was “some evidence” supporting their decision to discipline

him; claim must fail if contested discipline was imposed for actual rule violation);

Gassler v. Wood, 14 F.3d 406, 408 n.5 (8th Cir. 1994) (“prison officials do not commit

constitutional violations by reading prisoners’ nonprivileged mail”).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2020279EN.01003801.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 18 June 2020 — AG and Others v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-270/20)

(2020/C 279/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AG, MG and HG, all minors and all represented for legal purposes

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the air carrier may reduce the entitlement to compensation under Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation also in the case where, as a result of the cancellation of the flight booked, the passengers are offered an alternative flight the scheduled time of departure and the scheduled time of arrival of which are each 11:55 hours earlier than the flight times of the cancelled flight?

---

(1)  Regulation 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_2021338EN.01002202.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/22

---

Order of the General Court of 25 June 2021 — OM v Commission

(Case T-728/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Social security - JSIS - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Rejection of the application - Rejection of the complaint - Substitution of grounds - Lodging of a second complaint - Time limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 338/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OM (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decisions of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission of 9 and 17 September 2019 refusing to reimburse the costs of medical analyses incurred by the applicant and, secondly, of the decision of 23 March 2020 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against those decisions.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

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

2.

OM shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---
Miguel RIVERA SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0682

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Barry TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2763

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Filed 3/24/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 56

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Justin Craig Eaglechasing, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20140336

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Patricia Lea Wilson, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kelsey Lee Gentzkow, 405 Bruce Avenue, Suite 100, Grand Forks, ND 58201, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Eaglechasing

No. 20140336

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Justin Craig Eaglechasing appeals from a criminal judgment, entered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of terrorizing with a dangerous weapon.  Eaglechasing argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of terrorizing with a dangerous weapon.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding sufficient evidence supports the district court’s conviction.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom
Robert M. LOBER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**I, Patrick H. Dudasik, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      August 11, 2005     /S/ Patrick H. Dudasik     Patrick H. Dudasik  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, et al. v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C., et al.

NO. 2019-CD-0402

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 2019

*907Stay denied. Writ denied.
Dennis CHRISTENSEN, Appellant, v. Judy Kay VINZ, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1257

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 15, 2019

Affirmed.
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 4 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide 

that debate upon legislation pending before the Senate may not be 

brought to a close without the concurrence of a minimum of threefifths of the Senators. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself and Mr. GOLDEN of Maine) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to provide that debate upon legislation pending 

before the Senate may not be brought to a close without 

the concurrence of a minimum of three-fifths of the 

Senators. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 4 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘The debate on any measure or motion pending be5 fore the Senate, excluding Presidential nominations, shall 

6 not be brought to a close except as provided under laws 

7 as in effect on January 3, 2025, unanimous consent, or 

8 the concurrence of a minimum of three-fifths of the Sen9 ators duly chosen and sworn.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Steven Lewis COTTON v. STATE

CR-15-1496

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 7, 2017 Reh. denied July 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30746

Summary Calendar

_____________________

JOSEPH CHARGOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION ET AL.,

Defendants,

FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-4195

October 5, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Chargois appeals the judgment, following a bench trial,

in favor of the Fair Grounds Corporation on his Age Discrimination

in Employment Act (ADEA) claim, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Chargois

contends that he produced direct evidence of age discrimination,

pointing to evidence that Lt. James called him “old man”. He

maintains that, because he produced direct evidence of age bias,
- 2 -

the district court should have applied the mixed motives analysis

of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), rather than

the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) pretext

analysis. 

In Brown v. CSG Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651, 656 (5th Cir. 1996),

an ADEA age discrimination case, the plaintiff was called an “old

goat” and told “you just can’t remember, you’re getting too old”.

However, our court did not find this to be direct evidence of

discrimination, but rather found that “the comments imply”

discrimination. Id. at 656-57. Then, although it did not mention

McDonnell Douglas, the court used a similar analysis. Here, James

referred to Chargois as an “old man” and told him “you don’t need

this job”. Like the evidence in Brown, these statements only imply

that James was discriminating against Chargois, but do not provide

direct evidence of discrimination. Accordingly, the district court

was correct in applying the McDonnell Douglas analysis.

The appropriate question after a trial on the merits in an

ADEA case, as enunciated in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S.

604, 610 (1993), is whether age actually played a role in, and had

a determinative influence on, the employer’s decision-making

process. Armendariz v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co., 58 F.3d 144, 149

(5th Cir. 1995). The district court’s finding that “the Fair

Grounds has a history of hiring older workers”; that “there is

[not] a climate of age discrimination at the Fair Grounds”; that

Chargois “was not terminated due to his age”; and that Chargois had

not shown that termination for insubordination was not the true
- 3 -

reason are sufficient findings that age did not have a

determinative influence on the decision to terminate him. Chargois

does not contend that these findings are clearly erroneous. See

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985);

Odom v. Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993).

 AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ROBERT CHUR; STEVE FOGG; MARK GARBER; CAROL HARTER; ROBERT HURLBUT; BARBARA LUMPKIN; JEFF MARSHALL; AND ERIC STICKELS, Appellants,

vs. COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA AS RECEIVER OF LEWIS AND CLARK LTC RICK RETENTION GROUP, INC., Res ondent. No. 84311



# FILED JUN O6 2o22 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERX3y

,s 7PREME COURT BY Y( DEPUTY 1-. C t LER1

6-

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from orders entered prior to entry of the final judgment denying attorney fees and to retax and settle costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nancy L. Allf, Judge.

Because it appeared that a timely tolling motion had been filed after entry of the order appealed from, this court directed appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of this court's jurisdiction. Appellants have responded and do not dispute that the tolling motion was filed and has not yet been resolved. Accordingly, appellants fail to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction, and this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Hardesty 

## A4eLtbaug , J. Stiglich —111 1 , J. Herndon 7g9 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947Acc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge Lipson Neilson P.C. Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF ' NEVADA
(0) I947A 4/Pt19 2
# C_2022266EN.01002201.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (TAROM; Rescue Aid)

(Case T-718/20) (1)

(State aid - Air transport - Support measure taken by Romania - Rescue aid to TAROM - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Status as a party concerned - Safeguarding of procedural rights - Admissibility - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Measure aiming to prevent social hardship or to address market failure - ‘One time, last time’ principle - Effect of earlier aid granted before Romania’s accession to the European Union - Serious difficulties - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 266/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Bottka and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3), by which the European Commission, first, did not raise any objections to an aid measure granted by Romania to the Compania Nationala de Transporturi Aeriene Romane ‘TAROM SA’ (‘TAROM’) consisting of a loan in the amount of 175 952 000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 36 660 000), repayable at the end of a period of six months, and, second, declared that aid to be compatible with the internal market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---
# C_2021471EN.01005002.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/50

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-611/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China - Registration of imports - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 471/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey, V. Villante and M. Pirovano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 275, p. 16), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Airoldi Metalli SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Airoldi Metalli SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---
Hector Alexis MELENDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2426

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018399EN.01001101.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-471/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification of goods - Fried instant noodles - Tariff subheading 1902 30 10))

(2018/C 399/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that subheading 1902 30 10 thereof covers instant noodle dishes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are, in essence, composed of a block of pre-cooked and fried noodles.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of OmniReliant Holdings Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”),
I, Paul Morrison, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to
my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      May 20,
      2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Paul
      MorrisonPaul
      MorrisonChief
      Executive
Officer