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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7484

LEVON SPAULDING, a/k/a John Scott,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02174-BO)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levon Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Levon Spaulding seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it on that 

basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Spaulding has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Spaulding’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization 

to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert 

claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, 

previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to 

cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, 

not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, 

but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2) (2012). Spaudling’s claims do not satisfy either 

of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 75 

Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Lunar New Year in 

2025. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2025 

Ms. MENG (for herself, Ms. ANSARI, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. BERA, Mr. 

CARBAJAL, Mr. CARSON, Mr. CASE, Ms. CHU, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. 

DESAULNIER, Ms. DELBENE, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mrs. 

FLETCHER, Mr. FOSTER, Mrs. FOUSHEE, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. GOLDMAN of New York, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE, Mr. KHANNA, Mrs. KIM, 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. LEE of Nevada, Mr. LIEU, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. 

MIN, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. 

POCAN, Ms. PRESSLEY, Ms. ROSS, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, 

Ms. STRICKLAND, Mr. SUBRAMANYAM, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. TITUS, Ms. 

TLAIB, Ms. TOKUDA, Mrs. TORRES of California, Mr. TORRES of New 

York, Mr. TRAN, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, and Ms. 

WILLIAMS of Georgia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Lunar 

New Year in 2025. 

Whereas Lunar New Year begins on the second new moon 

following the winter solstice, or the first day of the new 

year according to the lunisolar calendar, and extends 

until the full moon 15 days later; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 75 IH 

Whereas the 15th day of the new year, according to the 

lunisolar calendar, is called the Lantern Festival; 

Whereas Lunar New Year is often referred to as Spring Festival in various Asian countries; 

Whereas many religious and ethnic communities use lunarbased calendars; 

Whereas Lunar New Year began in China more than 4,000 

years ago and is widely celebrated in East and Southeast 

Asia; 

Whereas Lunar New Year is recognized as Seollal among Koreans and Tt among Vietnamese; 

Whereas the Asian diaspora has expanded the Lunar New 

Year celebration into an annual worldwide event; 

Whereas Lunar New Year is celebrated by millions of Asian 

Americans, and by many non-Asian Americans, in the 

United States; 

Whereas Lunar New Year is celebrated with community activities and cultural performances; 

Whereas participants celebrating Lunar New Year travel to 

spend the holiday reuniting with family and friends; and 

Whereas Lunar New Year is traditionally a time to wish 

upon others good fortune, health, prosperity, and happiness: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the cultural and historical signifi3 cance of Lunar New Year; 

4 (2) in observance of this Lunar New Year, the 

5 Year of the Snake, expresses its deepest respect for 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 75 IH 

1 Asian Americans and all individuals throughout the 

2 world who celebrate this significant occasion; and 

3 (3) wishes Asian Americans and all individuals 

4 who observe this holiday a happy and prosperous 

5 new year. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2018042EN.01000203.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/2

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2017 in Case T-470/16, X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-520/17 P)

(2018/C 042/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Hillers, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 30 November 2017, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---
#### W. A. Chambers et al., *Petitioners,*v. County of St. Johns, *Defendant.*

Opinion Filed October 29, 1927.

*Bassett*and *Hunter,*for Petition.

Per Curiam.

Application for writ of certiorari in condemnation proceedings.

The transcript of the record attached as an exhibit to the petition is not certified to.

In the Spafford case 110 So. Rep. 451, an appropriation of lands was ordered and made pending condemnation proceedings, in violation of organic property rights that- could not be adequately remedied on writ of error after final judgment in the condemnation proceedings.

In this case there was no illegal appropriation of the lands before condemnation. Errors committed in condemnation proceedings may be reviewed on writ of error. Even though a supersedeas on a writ of error in condemnation proceedings be not allowable under the statute; yet, if the preservation of the particular property in its existing status be essential to the administration of justice in the cause, the Constitution empowers this .Court “to issue all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction”; and this authority may be exercised upon proceedings by writ of error or appeal as well as by certiorari or other original writs or process.

The petitioners have refused to participate in the pro*815ceedings to determine .the value of the lands; and errors if any in the condemnation proceedings, that injure the petitioners were remediable by writ of error. The proceedings complained of do not show such vital irregularity with irremediable injury to the petitioners as to justify the issuing of a writ of certiorari.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2016383EN.01002202.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/22

---

Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS)

(Case T-479/16)

(2016/C 383/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler, A. Stolz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘AROMASENSATIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 198 824

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 in Case R 2482/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismisses the appeal insofar as it is based on Article 7(1)(b); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismisses the appeal insofar as it is based on Article 7(1)(b);

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of principles of equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

---
EX PARTE Janice GREEN

1160919 (CR-15-0531)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffery LEWIS

No. 2018-KH-0425

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

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

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 second or successive application only under *60the 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew M. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, 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 results of operations of the Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 14, 2010



By:

/s/ Andrew M. SimsName:

Andrew M. SimsTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer




32
EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark J. Rosenblum, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Hemobiotech, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact 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 included in 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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining 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 ensure that
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) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained
in SEC Release 34-47986]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control 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 materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the such auditors
any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.


                                    /s/ Mark J. Rosenblum


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

       Date: August 11, 2005        Mark J. Rosenblum
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
Michael P. MATOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2176

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
In the INTEREST OF G.B., G.B., K.B., C.B., and R.B., children.

R.B., Appellants, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-4640

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
sec document






                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                      AMENDMENT TO 2002 STOCK OPTION PLAN


The first  sentence of Section 4 of the 2002 Stock  Option Plan has been amended
to read in its  entirety  as  follows:  "Subject  to  adjustment  as provided in
Section 7 hereof,  a total of 1,050,000  shares of the  Company's  Common Stock,
$.01 par value per share (the "Stock"), shall be subject to the Plan."
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Louis M. Brown, Jr., 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, the Annual Report of Precision Auto Care, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Precision Auto Care, Inc.

|Signature                                 |  | Title                                                                         |  | Date              
|----------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|                                          |  |                                                                               |  |                   
|/s/LOUIS M. BROWN, JR.Louis M. Brown, Jr. |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer) |  | September 25, 2003

---

QuickLinks
---

Exhibit 4.X

PROMISSORY NOTE
  of
  Battle Mountain Gold Inc. ("BMG") FOR VALUE RECEIVED, BMG promises to pay to David Elliott of 200 Burrard Street, Suite 700, Vancouver, BC V6C 3L6 ("Lender") the amount of $50,000.00 (fifty thousand dollars) plus interest at the rate of 6% (six per cent) per annum calculated from September 22, 2014 until the date or dates of repayment on a non-compounding basis not in advance, on the demand of the Lender provided cash funds of $100,000.00 or more have been received by BMG from the proceeds of one or more equity issuances by BMG prior to the time of the demand by the Lender. Executed this 22nd day of September, 2014 on behalf of BMG by: /s/ "Ian Brown"
  Ian Brown
  Chief Financial Officer (having the authority to bind BMG) E-675
***CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED***

***PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

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

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Mark                Klein                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
| Name: Mark                KleinTitle:                 Chief Executive Officer, President and Date:                October 3, 2006Director                (Principal Executive Officer and Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) August                18, 2006 |   |   |   |

----
Franky JOHNSON v. STATE

CR-16-1298

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:03-cv-02615-G Document 6 Filed 10/24/03 Page 1 of 4 PageID 19
Case 3:03-cv-02615-G Document 6 Filed 10/24/03 Page 2 of 4 PageID 20
Case 3:03-cv-02615-G Document 6 Filed 10/24/03 Page 3 of 4 PageID 21
Case 3:03-cv-02615-G Document 6 Filed 10/24/03 Page 4 of 4 PageID 22
# C_2017168EN.01002201.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 27 February 2017 — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-104/17)

(2017/C 168/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

Appellant:

Respondent: Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Can Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) be interpreted as precluding the adoption, in a Member State of the European Union, of legislation that imposes a contribution payable by the economic operator which places packaged goods and packaging on the market, without in any way altering the goods or packaging, and sells them in the same form to an economic operator which, in turn, sells them on to the final consumer, the amount of the contribution being fixed per kilogram (kg), on the basis of the difference between, on the one hand, the quantities of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for recovery or incineration in waste incineration plants with energy recovery and waste recycling facilities, and, on the other, the quantities of packaging waste actually recovered or incinerated in waste incineration plants with energy recovery and waste recycling facilities?

1

contribution

---

(1)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).

1

---
David ROJAS, DC #362996, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2213

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 15, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.