alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of Louisiana v. David KERSEY

No. 2018-KH-0204

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LIVINGSTON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00232

- CR

LONNIE DEAN CODY,

JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

Appellant Lonnie Dean Cody, Jr. attempts to appeal from his conviction for

unlawful possession of a firearm. However, the trial court’s certification of his

right to appeal states that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.”

On July 6 , 2011, this court notified appellant about the statement on the

trial court’s certification and informed him that unless h e or any party desiring to

c ontinue to the appeal filed with the court

, on or before July 18, 2011, a response

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. We have received no response. There fore, we

dismiss the appeal. See Te x. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY

, MEIER

, and GABRIEL

, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 3, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

_________________________________________

CURTIS EVANS GASTON, JR., PRO SE, §

TDCJ-CID No. 403441, §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

V. § 2:04-CV-0267

§

NFN DANIELS, NFN NOBLE, §

NFN COPELAND, GARY JOHNSON, and §

OFFICER C. BELL, §

§

 Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff CURTIS EVANS GASTON, JR., proceeding pro se and while a prisoner

incarcerated at the Pampa Intermediate Sanction Facility, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42,

United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-named defendants.

On April 13, 2005, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency Order giving plaintiff

thirty days to cure various deficiencies by submission of an I.F.P. Data Sheet and a completed

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

The response period has expired, and no response has been made by plaintiff. 

Instead, plaintiff’s copy of the Notice of Deficiency was returned to the Court undelivered and

bearing the notation, “Return to Sender, Inactive.” It appears plaintiff has abandoned his suit

and his claims for relief.

It is the conclusion of the United States District Judge that plaintiff has

abandoned this cause and such cause should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Link v.

Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (court possesses

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00267-J-BB Document 4 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17
2

inherent power to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The referral of the instant cause to the United States Magistrate Judge is hereby

withdrawn.

This Civil Rights Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to any attorney of

record by first class mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2005.

/s/ Mary Lou Robinson 

MARY LOU ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00267-J-BB Document 4 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 2 , 2014 

# Order

Clerk September 2 , 2014

147335 ( 65 )

HAROLD HUNTER, JR.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 147335

v COA: 306018

Genesee CC: 10

- 094081

- NI

DAVID SISCO and AUTO CLUB

INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

Defendants,

and

CITY OF FLINT TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Association f or Justice

to file a late amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief received on August 25,

2014, is accepted for filing.
# C_2016222EN.01002202.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/22

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)

(Case T-145/16)

(2016/C 222/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laura Corsini Santolaria (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Molins Tura (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘biombo 13’ — Application for registration No 12 271 383

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 744/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety as regards Classes 25, 35 and 42 in respect of which registration is sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety as regards Classes 25, 35 and 42 in respect of which registration is sought;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 32.2




Certification required by Rule
13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and 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 NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John H.
Homier, President and 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 my knowledge:




(1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





June
24, 2010





/s/
      Stephen K. GardnerStephen
      K. GardnerChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
# C_2019016EN.01001601.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV

(Case C-310/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Scope - Article 2 - Reproduction rights - Concept of ‘work’ - Taste of a food product))

(2019/C 16/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Levola Hengelo BV

Respondent: Smilde Foods BV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding (i) the taste of a food product from being protected by copyright under that directive and (ii) national legislation from being interpreted in such a way that it grants copyright protection to such a taste.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---
OFFICER'S STATEMENT

          Harry Puglisi, Treasurer of The Money Store Commercial Mortgage, Inc.

(the "Servicer"), in accordance with Section 7.04 of the Pooling and Servicing

Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of February 28, 1997 wherein The Money Store

Commercial Mortgage, Inc., is the "Servicer" states the following:

          (i)    the Servicer has fully complied with articles V and VII;

          (ii)   a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1997 and of
                 its performance under the Agreement has been made under my
                 supervision;

          (iii)  to the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer
                 has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
                 throughout 1997 and there has been no default in the
                 fulfillment of any such obligation.


THE MONEY STORE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE, INC.


BY: /S/ HARRY PUGLISI
    Harry Puglisi
    Treasurer
<PAGE>
                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT



The Board of Directors
The Money Store Inc.:

We have examined Management's Assertion about The Money Store Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards
relating to mortgage loans, commercial loans and auto loans, identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP), except for minimum servicing standard V. 4 which is
inapplicable to the servicing of auto loans, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1997 included in the accompanying Management Assertion. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's Assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, Management's Assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.






February 11, 1998
D.J.H., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4331

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2016475EN.01002201.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/22

---

Action brought on 24 October 2016 — Generis — Farmacêutica/EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)

(Case T-744/16)

(2016/C 475/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Generis — Farmacêutica, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: J. Paulo Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corpak MedSystems, Inc. (Buffalo Grove, Illinois, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘CORGRIP’ — Application for registration No 12 437 919

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 July 2016 in Case R 2443/2015-2

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;

| — | maintain the decision of the Opposition Division of 15 October 2015 in Opposition B 002334129; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the decision of the Opposition Division of 15 October 2015 in Opposition B 002334129;

| — | upheld the Opposition B 002334129; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the Opposition B 002334129;

| — | refuse in its entirety the EU Trademark Application No. 012437919 ‘CORGRIP’; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse in its entirety the EU Trademark Application No. 012437919 ‘CORGRIP’;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Appellant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
James M. SONIAT v. CROWN BUICK & RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

NO. 2019-00058

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

*903Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
Tristan Endrion HAMILTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4754

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 22 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security 

relating to ‘‘Modernizing H–1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in 

the F–1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2025 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. SELF, and Mr. MOORE of West Virginia) 

submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of 

Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Modernizing H–1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F–1 Program, 

and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Modernizing 

5 H–1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F–1 

6 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 22 IH 

1 Nonimmigrant Workers’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 103054), and 

2 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 of Flag Intermediate Holdings Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Periodic Report), I, Robert C. McPherson, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 12, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Robert C. McPherson, III                                              
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Robert C. McPherson, III Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 22 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 22

   Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland 
    Security relating to ``Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing 
  Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting 
                     Other Nonimmigrant Workers''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2025

 Mr. Arrington (for himself, Mr. Self, and Mr. Moore of West Virginia) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland 
    Security relating to ``Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing 
  Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting 
                     Other Nonimmigrant Workers''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security relating to 
``Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 
Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant 
Workers'' (89 Fed. Reg. 103054), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:30 a.m. EST, Friday, January 10, 2025.

# PLACE: 

Virtual meeting.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        Enforcement and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.cftc.gov/​.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

Dated: January 3, 2025.

Christopher Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2025-00222 Filed 1-3-25; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CHARLIE J. HEASLET, JR. §

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:04-CV-763-Y

 §

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER §

OF SOCIAL SECURITY §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 13, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued

his findings, conclusions, and recommendation in the above-styled and

numbered cause (“the findings”). An order issued that same day gave

all parties until November 3 to serve and file with the Court written

objections to the findings. Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

Thus, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not

required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the findings for plain

error and has found none. After consideration of this matter, the

Court finds that the findings should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of this Court. 

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner

is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED November 7, 2004.

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00763-Y Document 24 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 80