alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 21 PageID 125
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 21 PageID 126
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 21 PageID 127
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 4 of 21 PageID 128
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 5 of 21 PageID 129
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 6 of 21 PageID 130
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 7 of 21 PageID 131
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 8 of 21 PageID 132
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 9 of 21 PageID 133
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 10 of 21 PageID 134
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 11 of 21 PageID 135
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 12 of 21 PageID 136
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 13 of 21 PageID 137
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 14 of 21 PageID 138
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 15 of 21 PageID 139
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 16 of 21 PageID 140
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 17 of 21 PageID 141
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 18 of 21 PageID 142
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 19 of 21 PageID 143
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 20 of 21 PageID 144
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02520-P Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 21 of 21 PageID 145
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6931

RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY W. HUFFMAN; DAVID K. SMITH; BOBBY W.

SOLES; BARBARA WHEELER; ICC COMMITTEE; S.

RALLS; RUFUS FLEMING; STANLEY JONES; CAPTAIN

SPEARS; CAPTAIN WOODSON; LIEUTENANT YATES;

LIEUTENANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT ELDRIDGE; E. O.

TRENT; SERGEANT TONEY; SERGEANT SMITH; SERGEANT PHILLIPS; SERGEANT TERRY; SERGEANT D.

STITH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-93-482-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie L. Simmons, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Jill

Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order entering

judgment on the jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action.

The record does not contain a transcript of the jury trial. Appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues

raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c).

Appellants proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis are entitled to

transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28

U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). By failing to produce a transcript or to

qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense,

Appellant has waived review of the issues on appeal which depend

upon the transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22,

26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1025 (1992); Keller v. Prince

George's County, 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the record before the court and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district

court's order. 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.

AFFIRMED
EX PARTE D.E.

(In re: D.E. v. Russell County Department of Human Resources)

2170110

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
---

Exhibit 13.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Madison Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: February 25, 2014 “Ian Brown”Ian BrownChief Financial Officer


---
# C_2019319EN.01001101.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission, Freistaat Sachsen

(Case C-654/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Regional investment aid - Aid for a large investment project - Aid partly incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(3) TFEU - Whether the aid is necessary - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Aid exceeding the individual notification threshold - Notification - Scope of the block exemption - Cross-appeal - Whether an intervention before the General Court of the European Union may proceed - Admissibility)

(2019/C 319/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (represented by: M. Rosenthal, G. Drauz and M. Schütte, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, A. Bouchagiar and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), Freistaat Sachsen (represented by: T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders Freistaat Sachsen to bear its own costs in respect of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Freistaat Sachsen to bear its own costs in respect of the main appeal;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and of Freistaat Sachsen in respect of the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and of Freistaat Sachsen in respect of the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-11-2002

Burns v. Comm Social Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-1091

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Burns v. Comm Social Security" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 794.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/794
PRECEDENTIAL 

 Filed December 11, 2002 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 02-1091 

JOSEPH BURNS, 

 Appellant 

v. 

*JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c)) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-02917) 

District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly 

Argued September 9, 2002 

Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ROTH and RENDELL, 

Circuit Judges 

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Slip Opinion filed in 

this case on December 4, 2002, be amended as follows: 

1. On page 16, in footnote 6, at the beginning of the 

fourth line, change the word "form" to " from." 

2. On page 18, in footnote 8, in the third line, correct 

the citation in Carey v. Apfel from "6th Cir." to "5th Cir." 

3. On page 18, in footnote 8, in the thirteenth line, 

correct the citation in Johnson v. Shalala from "6th Cir." to 

"5th Cir." 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Marjorie O. RendellCircuit Judge 

DATED: 11 December 2002 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 
 2
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________
No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 91 -C V

______________________________

I N RE: MI CH AE L HO OPE R & ASS OC I AT ES, P.C.

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

r t e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor a nd

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issME MO RA ND UM OPI

NI ON

Mic h ae l Hooper & Associates, P.C., has filed a petition asking this Court to issue a writ of

ma n d a mu s a g a in s t t

h e H o n o r a

b le Jo h n O v a r d
, A d mi n is tr a ti v e Ju d g e o f th e F ir s t A d ministrative

Re g i o n , i n D a l l a s , T e xa s

. I n t h e p e t i t i o n , R e l a t o r c o m p l a i n s t h a t m a n d a m u s s h o u l d i s s u e b e c a us e

Ovar d did not hold a hear ing on Re lator' s motion t o rec use a district judg e.

Th is C ou rt

ha s juri sd ic tio n to iss ue a wr it o f m a nd a mus a g a ins t " a jud g e of a dis tr ic t or c ou nty

cou rt in th e cou rt of appe als di st ri ct. " T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE ANN . § 22.221(b) ( Ver non 2004). Da llas

County is no t wi thi n thi s c ou rt -o f- a pp e a ls dis tr ic t, a nd Ov a rd is no t a jud g e of a dis tr ic t or co un ty

co u rt wi t h i n this dist rict. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE ANN

. § 2 2

. 2 0 1 ( g ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 4 )

. We h a v e no
jurisdiction over this petition.

We d e ny the pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

ma nd a mus

.

J o s h R

. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice

Date Submitted: October 7, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 8, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: May 15, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

JOURDEAN SARAH LORAH 

v. Record No. 1164-96-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ROD HARRIS/L2R DESIGN ASSOCIATES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 

AND 

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 OF AMERICA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jourdean Sarah Lorah, pro se, on brief). 

 (Lisa C. Healey; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & 

Boccarosse, on brief), for appellees. 

 Jordean Sarah Lorah ("claimant") contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in denying her 

application for benefits alleging an injury by accident arising 

out of and in the course of her employment on February 13, 1992. 

 Claimant makes numerous arguments in her opening brief which are 

irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal. The dispositive 

issue is whether the commission erred in finding that the statute 

of limitations contained in Code § 65.2-601 barred it from 

considering claimant's application. Upon reviewing the record 

and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's 

decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 Code § 65.2-601 provides that "[t]he right to compensation 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

under this title shall be forever barred, unless a claim be filed 

with the Commission within two years after the accident." 

Claimant alleged that her accident occurred on February 13, 1992. 

 She did not file her application until April 10, 1995, more than 

two years after the date of her alleged accident. Therefore, 

unless the statute of limitations was tolled or the doctrine of 

estoppel applied, claimant's application was time-barred. 

 Claimant admitted that she did not notify employer of her 

accident. In addition, employer's representative testified that 

he did not become aware of claimant's accident until April 1995, 

after the statute of limitations had expired. Thus, the 

commission did not err in refusing to apply the tolling 

provisions contained in Code § 65.2-602 or the doctrine of 

estoppel to bar employer from raising the statute of limitations. 

 Based upon this record, we cannot say that the commission 

erred in finding that claimant's application was time-barred. 

Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
Case 2:05-cv-00021-J Document 11 Filed 03/21/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 30
 

 Case 2:05-cv-00021-J Document 11 Filed 03/21/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 31
 

 Case 2:05-cv-00021-J Document 11 Filed 03/21/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 32
Malcolm Randall BADGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3488

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Malcolm Randall Badgers appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following the revocation of his probation in two cases that had been transferred from juvenile to adult court. We affirm in all respects except that we remand for the trial court to correct both the written judgment and the revocation order. Badgers correctly points out that the written judgment contains a scrivener's error; it improperly classifies attempted burglary of an unoccupied dwelling as a second-degree felony when it is, in fact, a third-degree felony. *See* *Morgan v. State*, 228 So.3d 681, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (treating the incorrect classification of an offense as a scrivener's error and remanding for correction). Badgers also correctly points out that the trial court's written revocation order failed to specify the conditions of probation that he was found to have violated. *See* *T.M. v. State*, 233 So.3d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[T]he law is well-settled: if the trial court revokes a juvenile's probation, the court is required to render a written order setting forth the conditions of probation that were violated."). The State concedes that remand for the correction of the revocation order is appropriate. *See* *id.* Accordingly, we affirm but remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener's error in the written judgment and enter a written revocation order setting forth the specific conditions of probation that Badgers was found to have violated.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

BLACK and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

BEATRICE A. PERRERO, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 5:04-CV-277-C

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Plaintiff is appealing an adverse decision of the Defendant, Jo Anne B.

Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The

United States Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on June 22,

2005. No written objections have been filed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and

Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the

Court and that the above-styled and numbered cause is hereby dismissed with

prejudice.

Dated this 18th day of July, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:04-cv-00277-C Document 14 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 64
#### Kate Havlin Martin, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of John H. Havlin, Deceased, *Appellant,*v. M. D. Wilson, N. S. Wood and J. H. Ware, Trading and Doing Business as Wilson Sheet Metal Works, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed July 13, 1927.

*Shutts & Bowen*and *L. S.*Julian, for Appellants;

*W. F. Brown, M. S. Bobst*and *Boy S. Wood,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

The transcript of the record in this case having been examined and considered by the Court, it is found that the decree herein should be affirmed, except as to that part of the decrée allowing attorney’s fees, which should be reversed, and the costs of the appeal should be taxed against the complainant on authority of the opinion in the case of Kate Havlin Martin et al. v. Rother, decided at this term of the Court, and it is so ordered.

Reversed in part.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Darrell Jerome BURNSIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2609

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 4, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 566]

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1(a)(4) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4)), I hereby delegate to C.S. Eliot Kang, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in or delegated to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security by any act, order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or executive order, now or hereafter issued.

The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Management may exercise any function or authority delegated herein. This delegation of authority does not modify any other delegation of authority currently in effect.

                    This delegation will be effective on December 31, 2024, and will expire upon the entry upon duty of a confirmed Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security unless sooner revoked and shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 20, 2024.

Antony J. Blinken,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2025-00269 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Lorenzo GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1743

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Quincy YOUNG

No. 2018-KH-0926

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

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 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.
T.A.D. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160709

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.