alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2071** 

In R e: MICHAEL O. WATKINS , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. (4:08

- cr - 00123

- RGD

- TEM

- 4)

Submitted : December 6, 2012 Decided: December 12, 2012

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

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael O. Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael O. Watkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 201 2 ) motion and seeking an order from this court directing the district court to issue a ruling . Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that an order and a final judgment addressing this motion were filed by the district court on September 9, 2011, and entered on September 12 , 2011. Accordingly, although we grant Watkins’s motion s to amend his petition and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
# C_2016090EN.01002501.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/25

---

Action brought on 14 January 2016 — Pandalis v OHIM– LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

(Case T-15/16)

(2016/C 090/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cystus’ — Community mark No 1 273 119

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2015 in Case R 2839/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision relating to Invalidity proceedings No 8374 C and Community mark No 1 273 119 ‘Cystus’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision relating to Invalidity proceedings No 8374 C and Community mark No 1 273 119 ‘Cystus’;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) thereof;

| — | Misuse of powers; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
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 Annual Report of GlobalSantaFe Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael R. Dawson, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|                                                       
|/s/ Michael R. Dawson                                  
|Michael R. Dawson Chief Financial Officer March 2, 2006
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John M. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-4038

___________ Douglas Thompson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Federal Bureau of Investigation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 5, 1999 Filed: May 11, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Douglas Thompson appeals from the district court’s 1 order denying with prejudice his postconviction motion for return of seized property. Upon a careful-2-

review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not abuseits discretion in denying Thompson’s motion. See Foy v. Klapmeier , 992 F.2d 774, 779 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for denial of equitable relief). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| MAY 23, 2011 |   |                                                                                                      |   |
|--------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|         |   |                                                                                                      |   |
|         |   | /s/ MICHAEL GOLDBERG                                                                                 |   |
|         |   | MICHAEL GOLDBERG                                                                                          |   |
|         |   | ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPALFINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER) |   |
# C_2016392EN.01004102.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/41

---

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)

(Case T-424/16)

(2016/C 392/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France) (represented by: C. de Chassey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crocs, Inc. (Longmont, Colorado, United States)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design ‘Footwear’ — Community design No 733 282-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2015 in Case R 37/2015-3

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;

| — | invalidate the Community design No 000733282-0001; |
| --- | --- |

—

invalidate the Community design No 000733282-0001;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of Hydril Company
             Percentage of Voting Securities Owned by Hydril Company



<Table>
<S>                                                                                     <C>
Hydril General LLC (Delaware)                                                           100%
         Hydril Company LP (Delaware)                                                     1%

Hydril Limited LLC (Delaware)                                                           100%
         Hydril Company LP (Delaware)                                                    99%

Hydril S.A. (Switzerland)                                                               *53%

Hydril Canadian Company, Ltd. (Canada)                                                  100%

Hydril U.K. Ltd. (England, U.K.)                                                        100%
         Rototec Ltd. (Scotland, U.K.)                                                  100%

Hydril Private Ltd. (Republic of Singapore)                                             100%
         Technical Drilling & Production Services Nigeria, ltd. (Nigeria)                60%
         P.T. Hydril Indonesia                                                          100%

Hydril S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)                                                            100%

Bettis de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)                                                  100%

SubSea MudLift Drilling Company, LLC (Delaware)                                         100%
</Table>

*Hydril Private Ltd. owns the remaining 47% equity interest in Hydril S.A.
Tyrone Brett LIGHTSEY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2484

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 23, 2019

Tyrone Brett Lightsey, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED.

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
# ~) John Randall Futch, Plaintiff,


### v. Glenn Fine, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAR - 52009 NANCYMAYERWHmINGTON.CLERK U.S.DISTRICTCOURT 

# 09 0420

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffspro se complaint and his application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed informapauperis and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff, a federal prisoner currently confined to a segregated housing unit for his own protection, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief, alleging that his due process rights have been violated because the defendant, the Inspector General for the United States Department ofJustice, has not conducted an investigation that plaintiffrequested. There is, however, no such thing as a due process right to an investigation by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, and plaintiffhas not identified any other way in which his due process rights might have been violated. Therefore, plaintiffhas not stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon which reliefmay be granted. Federal law obligates this Court to dismiss this complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (requiring a court to dismiss a complaint ifit fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted). A final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: United States District Judge
STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick SCOTT

NO. 2019-KH-0321

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b)
IIA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 1 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HAGERTY, Ms. LUMMIS, Mrs. 

BRITT, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. BANKS) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 1 IS 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 by the Congress: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 3 terms as 

5 a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House 

6 of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the elec7 tion of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Rep8 resentatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 

9 the number of terms that such person has served as a Rep10 resentative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 

11 1 year. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 2 terms as 

13 a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to 

14 the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or 

15 appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

16 shall be included as 1 term in determining the number 

17 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

18 person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

20 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

21 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

22 this article.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
JaJuan JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0673

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

JaJuan Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order of February 25, 2019, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant filing a petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of NetSol Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Najeeb Ghauri, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: March 10, 2011





/s/ Najeeb GhauriNajeeb Ghauri,Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmie SPRATT

No. 2018-KP-1436

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator 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).

Relator 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 *282mandatory. Relator'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, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Jerry WARREN, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR the STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC., Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR1, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR1, Appellee.

No. 4D18-739

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 6, 2019]

Michael Jay Wrubel of Michael Jay Wrubel, P.A., Davie, for appellant.

Jan Timothy Williams of Lapin & Leichtling, LLP, Winter Park, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. N.A. v. Fitzgerald,*215 So.3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Ciklin, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

ROBERTO A. RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 6:04-CV-023-C

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

September 15, 2005 (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on

October 3, 2005 (Doc 26). The court has made a de novo determination of the Report and

Recommendation after consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the submissions of the parties, and the

transcript of the administrative proceedings. 

The court finds the objections to be without merit. The court further finds that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports his decision. The court also

finds that the Report and Recommendation applied the correct legal standards

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00023-C Document 28 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 140
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

Dated October 7, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00023-C Document 28 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 141
Deborah CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-568

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Eric J. SCHOENUNG and Connie M. Schoenung, Petitioners, v. Michael NULL and Mary C. Null, Respondents.

No. 1D17-5171

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Frederick EVERETT v. INTORBUS OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC and Japerlet Wilson

Kevin Everett v. Intorbus of New Orleans, LLC and Occidental Insurance Company

Sequin Brimmer v. Intorbus of New Orleans, LLC; Japerlet Wilson; and IAT Specialty Acceptance Insurance Company

NO. 2019-C-0123

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.
Davion HADDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 14 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal 

the sixteenth article of amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. DAVIDSON submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 

4 SECTION 1. That the following article is proposed as 

5 an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 

6 which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part 

7 of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 

8 three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 

9 the date of its submission for ratification: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 14 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The sixteenth article of amendment to 

3 the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, 

4 and the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect 

5 taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, except in 

6 time of war declared by the Congress. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. Section 1 of this article shall take effect 

8 beginning 2 years after ratification of this article. Not 

9 later than 180 days after such ratification, the Secretary 

10 of the Treasury shall submit a report to the Congress con11 taining recommendations for any legislation that may be 

12 necessary to implement this article.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS