alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60121

Summary Calendar

 

DARILE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARVEY TACKETT; JAILER TWELLER;

JAILER TIPEE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4-94-CV-69-S-B

- - - - - - - - - -

January 30, 1997

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Darile Johnson, a Mississippi state prisoner, No. 27928,

appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his action

for failure to state a claim. The district court’s dismissal

occurred prior to the completion of service of process against

the defendants and without any hearing being held pursuant to

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) or any
No. 96-60121

- 2 -

questionnaire being presented pursuant to Watson v. Ault, 525

F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1976).

Although the district court’s dismissal was unusual because

Johnson was not given any notice to allow him to clarify his

factual allegations, an examination of Johnson’s claims reveals

that there is no set of facts that Johnson could allege which

would allow him to state a viable claim for relief. See

McCormack v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 845 F.2d 1338,

1343 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,

303 (1991); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Wilson v.

Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969

(1989). The district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED. Johnson’s

motion to object to the dismissal is DENIED as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MITCHELL CUPP, §

§

Plaintiff, §

v. § NO. 3:04-CV-0953-P

 §

ROCKY CLAYTON, ET AL., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court finds that Petitioner’s notice of appeal was

TIMELY filed and this case is returned to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED this 21 day of February 2007. st

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00953-P Document 86 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 481
Justin Alan KAEGAEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1565

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021329EN.01002602.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)

(Case T-290/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark goclean - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 329/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy) (represented by: L. Ghedina, L. Gyulai and E. Fassina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 991/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ceramica Cielo and Ceramica Flaminia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ceramica Flaminia SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ceramica Flaminia SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Required by Rule 13a-14(a), created by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

 

I, Roque A. Santi, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 17, 2005
Michael Anthony PADGETT, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Retha Ann PADGETT, Former Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019

Joseph L. Mannikko of Mannikko & Baris, Macclenny, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Michael Padgett (the former husband) appeals the trial court's denial of his petition to modify his alimony obligation to Retha Padgett (the former wife), arguing that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that he was capable of earning additional income. We cannot determine whether the trial court's finding was supported by the evidence due to the lack of transcript in the record on appeal, and must affirm. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee* , 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.").

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Kelsey and Winokur, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 3 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 3

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 3, 2025.
    Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the 
part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the 
Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each House 
has assembled and Congress is ready to receive any communication that he may be 
pleased to make.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Linda BARCELONA v. Anthony BROWN

NO. 2019-CC-0226

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, § 5.
# C_2017277EN.01002003.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/20

---

Appeal brought on 17 February 2017 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2016 in Case T-655/16 CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-87/17 P)

(2017/C 277/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 5 July 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
Aurenthiel Gene YOUNGBLOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1944

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              21
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,487
<PP&E>                                           5,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,666
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,597
<SALES>                                         13,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,172
<CGS>                                            7,347
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (4)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<FN>
Earnings per share basic (EPS-PRIMARY) and diluted reflects the adjustment for
income taxes as if the company were a C corporation for the entire period.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. WAYNE LADRELL WARREN, a/k/a Stink, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00026-H-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Ladrell Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Ladrell Warren appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Warren , No. 4:00-cr00026-H-1 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2009). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 21 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 21

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 9, 2025.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. 
Simpson, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Womack, Mr. 
Fleischmann, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Harris of Maryland, Mr. Amodei of Nevada, 
Mr. Valadao, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Cline, Mr. 
Reschenthaler, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Cloud, 
Mr. Guest, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Clyde, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. 
Ellzey, Mr. Ciscomani, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Alford, Mr. LaLota, Ms. Maloy, Mr. 
Strong, Mr. Moore of West Virginia.
    Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. Latta, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Bilirakis, 
Mr. Hudson, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. 
Crenshaw, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
Balderson, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Pfluger, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mrs. 
Cammack, Mr. Obernolte, Mr. James, Mr. Bentz, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Fry, Ms. Lee of 
Florida, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Kean, Mr. Rulli, Mr. Evans of Colorado, Mr. Goldman 
of Texas, Mrs. Fedorchak.
    Committee on Financial Services: Mr. Lucas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Huizenga, Mrs. 
Wagner, Mr. Barr, Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. 
Davidson, Mr. Rose, Mr. Steil, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
Meuser, Mrs. Kim, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Garbarino, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Flood, Mr. 
Lawler, Ms. De La Cruz, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mrs. McClain, Ms. Salazar, 
Mr. Downing, Mr. Haridopolos, Mr. Moore of North Carolina.
    Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Kelly 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Estes, Mr. 
Smucker, Mr. Hern of Oklahoma, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Murphy, Mr. 
Kustoff, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Steube, Ms. Tenney, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Moore of 
Utah, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Feenstra, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Carey, Mr. Yakym, Mr. 
Miller of Ohio, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Moran.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 250 

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to procure a statue of Benjamin 

Franklin for placement in the Capitol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Ms. HOULAHAN (for herself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mrs. MCCLAIN, Mr. 

MOULTON, Mr. MEUSER, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, 

Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. EVANS of Pennsylvania, Ms. DEAN of 

Pennsylvania, Ms. TITUS, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, 

Ms. LEE of Florida, and Mrs. BICE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to procure 

a statue of Benjamin Franklin for placement in the Capitol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROCUREMENT AND PLACEMENT OF STATUE 

4 OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN THE UNITED 

5 STATES CAPITOL. 

6 (a) OBTAINING OF STATUE.—Not later than Decem7 ber 31, 2025, the Joint Committee on the Library shall 

8 enter into an agreement to obtain a statue of Benjamin 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 250 IH

1 Franklin, under such terms and conditions as the Joint 

2 Committee considers appropriate consistent with applica3 ble law. 

4 (b) PLACEMENT.—Not later than December 31, 

5 2026, the Joint Committee shall place the statue obtained 

6 under subsection (a) in a suitable permanent location in 

7 the United States Capitol where the statue is accessible 

8 to the public during a guided tour of the Capitol provided 

9 by the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2019016EN.01000801.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-93/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery requirement - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil its obligations - Undertaking which engages in both civil and military activities - Non-implementation - Essential interests of the security of a Member State - Article 346(1)(b) TFEU - Financial penalties - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum - Ability to pay - ‘N’ Factor - Factors which are the basis for the assessment of the ability to pay - Gross domestic product - Weighting of votes of the Member State in the Council of the European Union - New voting rules in the Council))

(2019/C 16/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 27 November 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 27 November 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 7 294 000 for each six month period from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 7 294 000 for each six month period from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395).

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 10 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 10 000 000.

| 4. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---