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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 20, 2012 *

Decided August 20, 2012

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 12

‐ 1909

NORMAN FLICK,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v.

HECTOR M. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:08

‐ cv

‐ 461

‐ SEB

‐ TAB

Sarah Evans Barker,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Norman Flick appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged that 24 defendants (among them

attorneys, judges, detectives, business people, and a state prosecutor) colluded to steal his

property. First the court dismissed the complaint against two Indiana state

‐ court judges on

the alternative grounds of judicial immunity and failure to comply with the statute of NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2)(C).No. 12

‐ 1909 Page 2

limitations. Later the court dismissed the complaint against the remaining defendants for

failure to comply with federal notice

‐ pleading standards, see F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 8(a).

On appeal Flick does not develop any legal argument challenging the dismissal of

his action, and asserts only generally that “[R]ule 8 has been sufficiently plead” under

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

We construe pro se filings liberally, but even a pro se brief must contain more than a general

assertion of error. Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). A brief must

contain “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of

the record on which the appellant relies.” F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(9).

DISMISSED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CRVII BOCA TC, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership

, Appellant,

v.

THE CITY OF BOCA RATON and THE CITY OF BOCA RATON

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 238

[ April 23, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Dana Gillen , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502018CA012974XXXXMB

.

Ri chard Sarafan

, Benjamin P. Bean , and W. Barry Blum of Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Laura K. Wendell and Jamie A. Cole of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirm ed

.

May, D AMOORGIA N and C ONNER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 854 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Kelley. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States 

v. Kelley. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Kelley, Cr. No. 22– 

408, pending in the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, the prosecution has requested the 

production of testimony from Daniel Schwager, a former 

employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and employees of the 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no eviVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:07 Sep 25, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR854.ATS SR854

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 854 ATS 

dence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee 

2 of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized 

3 to provide relevant testimony in the case of United States 

4 v. Kelley, except concerning matters for which a privilege 

5 should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Mr. Schwager, and any current or former officer 

8 or employee of the Secretary’s office, in connection with 

9 the production of evidence authorized in section one of this 

10 resolution. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
James CREECH v. CITIZENS BANK & TRUST, Arvel Wilson, and Rebekah Wilson

2160165

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2016371EN.01001101.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/11

---

Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)

(Case T-400/16)

(2016/C 371/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MAXPLAY’ — Application for registration No 14 047 963

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 2273/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

| — | Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60876

Summary Calendar

 

CURTIS MALONE DIAMOND, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE WRIGHT, Attorney; RICKY H. THORNTON, Chief of Police; 

FRANK MURPHY, Captain; JOE GRIFFEN, City Attorney;

EDWARD HUNT, Police Officer, Correctional Officer I; 

BUCHANAN MEEKS, Judge; BRUCE BURNEY, Major; CITY OF ACKERMAN,

MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:02-CV-289-P-D 

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

January 29, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mississippi prisoner Curtis Malone Diamond, II, appeals the

dismissal with prejudice of his in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

Diamond argues that he was denied a constitutional right when he

was not given an initial appearance within 48 hours of his arrest
No. 02-60876 

-2-

as required by state law and that, therefore, he should be

released. 

Diamond makes no argument that the judge and the prosecutor

should not have been found by the district court to be immune. 

Accordingly, these issues are abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s

determination that an IFP complaint is frivolous. See Siglar v.

Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Diamond’s argument

that he should be released from confinement because he was not

given an initial appearance within 48 hours is barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189

(5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, Diamond’s claims that he should

be released because he was not given a timely initial appearance

are frivolous. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. 

The three-strikes provision of § 1915(g) “prohibits a

prisoner from proceeding IFP if he has had three actions or

appeals dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to

state a claim.” Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 819 (5th Cir.

1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Diamond has acquired two strikes as

a result of this frivolous complaint and appeal. See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 386-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Diamond is
No. 02-60876 

-3-

cautioned that the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar will be imposed should

he accumulate another strike and he will not be allowed to

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Tyrone PRESHA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-0136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 11

ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES        Statements re Computation of Per Share Earnings        (Common shares means both Class A and Class B)

|                                                                                                                                              |  | Year ended December 31,
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|
|Net earnings:                                                                                                                                 |  |                        
|Earnings on common sharesbasic                                                                                                               |  | $                      
|                                                                                                                                              |  |                        
|Shares used to compute basic earnings per common share (weighted average number of shares outstanding)                                        |  |                        
|Shares used to compute diluted earnings per common share (weighted average number of shares outstanding assuming the effect of stock options) |  |                        
|Net earnings per common share:                                                                                                                |  |                        
|Basic                                                                                                                                         |  | $                      
|                                                                                                                                              |  |                        
|Diluted                                                                                                                                       |  | $                      
|                                                                                                                                              |  |                        

79

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit
      12.2**


**Certification
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of EXFO, hereby certifies, that:





1.
            The
                annual report of Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2007 of
                EXFO
                fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                EXFO.








Date:           November
      28, 2007.











/s/*Germain
      Lamonde*


Germain
      Lamonde


Chairman
      of the Board,


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
      chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part
      of the Report or as separate disclosure document.
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 Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Interim Chief Financial 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:



1.

Report fully complies with the 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 of the Company.



November 17, 2008



| |                                
| | -------------------------------
| | /s/ David J. Curd              
| | David J. Curd                  
| | Interim Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017006EN.01004601.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/46

---

Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets)

(Case T-760/16)

(2017/C 006/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artex SpA (Zeno di Cassola, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 142 245-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 in Case R 535/2015-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, if applicable, the other parties involved to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, if applicable, the other parties involved to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002, infringement of principles relating to the burden of proof and infringement of rules of logic in the evaluation of evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002, infringement of principles relating to the burden of proof and infringement of rules of logic in the evaluation of evidence;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

THOMAS UPSHAW, ID # 912268, ) 

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:03-CV-1791-P

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge; the objections raised thereto;

the Supplemental Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge; and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned

District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, as

supplemented, are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED this 21 day of April 2006. st

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01791-P Document 17 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 183
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 Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Chief Financial 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:



1)

The Report fully complies with the 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 of the Company.



November 17, 2008



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                    
| |     | David J. Curd
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017022EN.01005601.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/56

---

Action brought on 23 November 2016 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)

(Case T-830/16)

(2017/C 022/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark at issue

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PLOMBIR’

Mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1812/2015-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---