alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 7, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60052 

Summary Calendar

GHULAM MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A95 319 971

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ghulam Muhammad, a citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of the Board of

ImmigrationAppeal’s(BIA) decisionaffirming the immigration judge’s(IJ) order denying hisrequest

for withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s

decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). This court reviews the BIA’s

factual conclusion that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal under the substantial
-2-

evidence test. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Under this standard, “the alien must

show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.”

Id. An IJ’s findings on credibility are accorded great deference. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903

(5th Cir. 2002). 

Muhammad argues that the BIA erred in denying him withholding of removal because he

suffered persecution in Pakistan due to his membership in the Altaf faction of the political party

Muttahida Quami Movement. In denying withholding of removal, the IJ found that Muhammad’s

testimony was not credible, that conditions had changed significantly in Pakistan since the events

surrounding Muhammad’s 1996 departure, and that, if Muhammad felt threatened, he could safely

relocate to another part of Pakistan. In affirming the IJ, the BIA noted that, even assuming arguendo

that Muhammad’s testimony regarding his claimed past persecution was credible, the IJ “correctly

found that the presumption that the respondent’s life or freedom would be threatened in the future

had been rebutted” under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). After reviewing the record, we conclude that

the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal.

See Chun, 40 F.3d at 78. 

Accordingly, Muhammad’s petition for review is DENIED.
Taylor COLEMAN, Sr. v. Kitty COLEMAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Jesse D. Coleman

2170064

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jennifer Marie RACE, DOC #T97232 Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1556

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD ORESTE ROYALE, )

ID # 1127647, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-1448-K

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, )

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 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 are

correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Petitioner’s

Objections to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations, filed on July 3, 2007,

are OVERRULED.

Further, Petitioner’s Motion for Hearing, filed on June 26, 2007, is hereby

DENIED.

SIGNED this 9 day of July, 2007. th

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01448-K Document 27 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 254
Case 3:05-cv-01416-D Document 257 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4429
Case 3:05-cv-01416-D Document 257 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 4430
Milton HAMBRIGHT v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0679

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017318EN.01000601.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Società Immobiliare Al Bosco srl

(Case C-379/17)

(2017/C 318/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società Immobiliare Al Bosco srl

Applicant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 38(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to apply a time limit which is laid down in the law of the State in which enforcement is sought, and on the basis of which an instrument may no longer be enforced after the expiry of a particular period, also to a functionally comparable instrument issued in another Member State and recognised and declared enforceable in the State in which enforcement is sought?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2020161EN.01004002.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgique) lodged on 28 February 2020 — M. A. v État belge

(Case C-112/20)

(2020/C 161/53)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.A.

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Should Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) which requires Member States, when implementing the directive, to take account of the best interests of the child, together with Article 13 of that directive and Articles 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring the best interests of the child, an EU citizen, to be taken into account even if the return decision is taken with regard to the child’s parent alone?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

---
Latonya FISHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-566

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00 051 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MICHAEL HAVEY , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 319 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

A ppellant ’ s brief was originally due on April 10, 2015 . On September 3, 2015 , this Court granted by order appellant’s third motion for extension of time and directed appellant to file the brief on or before October 13 , 2015. The order notified counsel that

n o further extensions would be granted absent exigent circumstances. On October 23,2

2015, counsel filed a motion for leave to file the brief requesting an extension until October 28, 2015. Counsel has nevertheless failed to file an appellate brief in this matter. Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of t he Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant 's counsel has failed to file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to

court

- appointed counsel, the trial court shall ap point new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, email address, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing
counsel. The trial court shall cause its finding s and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.3

It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 4 th day of November, 2015

.
STATE of Louisiana v. Torbio SANTACRUZ

No. 2019-KK-0328

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. We vacate the district court's ruling to the extent it ordered defendant to appear in court for periodic visits. After conducting a contradictory hearing in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 648(B)(1), the district court determined that the incompetent defendant is unlikely in the foreseeable future to be capable of standing trial. Therefore, we order the district court to either order the defendant released or remanded to the custody of the Louisiana Department of Health, in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 648(B)(3).
Cynthia PERDUM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Maria Leonor GERHOLDT, Mary Joe McGowan, Crystal Moore and Susan Straatmann, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3542

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jennifer BEAUDRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Belated appeal is denied.
# C_2017053EN.01004301.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/43

---

Action brought on 29 December 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)

(Case T-909/16)

(2017/C 053/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anil K. Sharma (Hillingdon, United Kingdom)

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 ‘NRIM life Sciences’ — Application for registration No 13 031 455

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2376/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the EUTM No. 013031455 NRIM LIFE SCIENCES for all goods in class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the EUTM No. 013031455 NRIM LIFE SCIENCES for all goods in class 5;

| — | impose the costs to EUIPO and, in case ANIL K SHARMA decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to ANIL K. Sharma. |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the costs to EUIPO and, in case ANIL K SHARMA decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to ANIL K. Sharma.

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.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 54 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 54

    To direct the President to withdraw the United States from the 
 Constitution of the World Health Organization, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

   Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Burlison, Ms. 
Hageman, Mr. Massie, Mr. Crane, Mr. Moolenaar, Ms. Mace, Mr. Higgins of 
    Louisiana, Mr. Norman, Mr. Ogles, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
Brecheen, Mr. McCormick, and Mrs. Harshbarger) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the President to withdraw the United States from the 
 Constitution of the World Health Organization, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``WHO Withdrawal Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 
              HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.

    Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act--
            (1) the President shall withdraw the United States from the 
        Constitution of the World Health Organization (62 Stat. 2679; 
        14 U.N.T.S 186); and
            (2) no funds available to any Federal department or agency 
        may used to provide for the participation of the United States 
        in the World Health Organization or any successor organization.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1948.

    The Act of June 14, 1948 (Public Law 806-43; 62 Stat. 441; 22 
U.S.C. 290 et seq.), providing for membership and participation by the 
United States in the World Health Organization and authorizing an 
appropriation therefor, is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joe Sapotnick, *Appellant, v. V.*W. Gould, W. K. Turner and Harry A. Horn, as Members of and Comprising the Entire Board of Public Instruction for Volusia County, Florida; and the Board of Public Instruction for the County of Volusia and the State of Florida, a Body Corporate, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 6, 1927.

*Murray Sams,*for Appellant;

*Scarlett, Jordan, Futch <& Fielding,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court-upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen an inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court me, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Schmertz Denis PIERRE-LOUIS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1967

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROY TORREZ, JR., §

 §

Petitioner, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1303-D

VS. §

 §

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas § 

Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

 §

Respondent. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the

findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the objections filed by petitioner and

respondent, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct and are therefore

adopted.

SO ORDERED.

October 25, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01303-D Document 14 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 61
Case 2:05-cv-00090-J Document 26 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 176
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LINDA HACK )

)

V. ) 3-04-CV-2752-K

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND )

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ET AL )

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.

SO ORDERED this 3 day of November, 2006. rd

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02752-K Document 26 Filed 11/04/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 127
STATE of Louisiana v. Corey SMITH

No. 2018-KH-1061

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. 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. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

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.
Kayla Breann Evelyn Lucille COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-794

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NO. 07-06 -033 2-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JU NE 8, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DR. NY LA PT OMEY, APPEL LANT

V. TEXAS TEC H UN IVER SITY , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 99 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 3- 523,777 ; H ON ORABLE W ILLIA M C. SOW DE R, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t N y la Ptomey per fected ap peal from a summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of Tex as Tech U niv ersi ty

on h er cl aims of employ ment di sc rimi nati on and re tal iat ion

. The
c l er k ’ s rec ord w as fi l ed O c to be r 1 7, 2 00 6. Thi s Co ur

t g r an te d mot i on s to exte nd t he t i me for f iling app ellant ’s brief on Nov em ber 28, 200 6 an d Jan uary 10, 200 7. App ellant ’s third moti on for extens ion of t ime became moot on the fil ing of a tw elv e- v olu me sup ple mental
c l er k ’ s rec ord on A pr i l 2 , 20 07

. W e g r an te d ap pe l l an t’ s fou rth mo ti on for exte ns i on of t i me on M ay 7, 2007 an d her

or ig ina l br ief w as re cei v ed Ma y 11, 2007. By let ter date d M ay

16,2

2007, w e not ified appel lan t her br ief di d not substan ti all y comply w it h R ule s o f Appell ate Procedu re 9 an d 38. N otabl y , no copy of the b ri ef w as si g ned, or cont ain ed a pr ay er for
re li ef or cer

ti ficat e of ser

v ic e. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 9. 1( a) , 9 .5 (e), 38.1 (i ). Ap pel lan t w as direct ed to fil e a c or re cte d br ief on or before Tuesday , M ay

29, 2007, and adv is ed th e fail u r e t o d o s o w o u l d r e s u l t i n d i s mi s s a l o f t h e a p p e a l

. N o b r i e f o r o t h e r r e spons e has been recei v ed.
Accordin gly , w e dism iss the app eal fo r w ant of prose cution and failure t o co mp ly
w it h a d irect iv e of thi s C our t. See Te x . R. App. P. 42. 3(b) & (c).

Per C ur iam
Ronald Lamar BOWMAN v. STATE

CR-16-0908

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.