alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

ERIC WILBURN, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 3:16-CV-328 JVB 

SUPERINTENDENT, 

Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Eric Wilburn, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge a 

prison disciplinary proceeding (ISO 16-01-0010) held at the Indiana State Prison where the 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Disorderly Conduct in violation of B236 on January 27, 2016, and sanctioned him with the loss of 30 days earned credit time. This is 

not the first time that Wilburn has brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing. In 

Wilburn v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-108 (N.D. Ind. filed February 29, 2016), he challenged this 

same proceeding. In that case, the Court dismissed the petition pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 

because all of the claims were procedural defaulted. 

 As such, this is an unauthorized successive petition over which the Court has no 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “A district court must dismiss a second or 

successive petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of 

appeals has given approval for its filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 

1996) (emphasis in original). Because Wilburn has not obtained authorization from the Seventh 

Circuit to file a successive petition, the Court DISMISSES this case for want of jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED on January 12, 2017. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular
Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of
 operations of the Company.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Howard Root        
| |                        
| | Howard Root            
| | Chief Executive Officer
| | July 25, 2008          

---
#### In the Matter of Marah B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Lee D., Appellant; Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 109]—

Appeal from an order, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2011, which, following a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent father *605had permanently neglected the subject child, and decision, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 15, 2011, deemed to be an appeal taken from the final order of disposition, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 19, 2011, which terminated respondent’s parental rights to the child and placed her in the custody of petitioner and the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption by her foster mother, and as so considered, order of disposition unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner engaged in diligent efforts to strengthen respondent’s relationship with the child by making referrals for appropriate services, monitoring his progress with the services, scheduling visitation, and providing a visiting coach to assist respondent during visits with the child *(see Matter of Victor B. [Yvonne B.],*91 AD3d 458, 458-459 [2012]; *Matter of Emily Rosio G. [Milagros G.],*90 AD3d 511 [2011]).

Despite these diligent efforts, respondent failed to consistently comply with the services, including mental health services, failed to benefit from the services, and sporadically attended visitation. The court properly found that respondent’s efforts over the more than four-year period were insufficient, and that, as a result, he failed to plan for the child’s future *(id.).*

A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the respondent’s parental rights in order to free the child for adoption by her maternal grandmother with whom she has lived nearly her entire life and who wishes to adopt her. A suspended judgment is not warranted because respondent failed to make sufficient progress in overcoming his mental health issues. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.
Exhibit 13.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of NTT DoCoMo, Inc., a Japanese corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:
September 28, 2005



/s/ YOSHIAKI UGAKIYoshiaki UgakiExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Cite as 2022 Ark. 192

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE COMMISSION 

Opinion Delivered: October 27, 2022

PER CURIAM

The Honorable Kim Bridgforth, State District Judge, of Pine Bluff is reappointed to 

the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission for a three-year term to expire on October 15, 

2025. 

The Honorable Carlton D. Jones, Circuit Judge, of Texarkana is reappointed to the 

Arkansas Access to Justice Commission for a three-year term to expire on October 15, 2025.

The Honorable Adam Weeks, Circuit Judge, of Walnut Ridge is reappointed to the 

Arkansas Access to Justice Commission for a three-year term to expire on October 15, 2025.

We thank Judge Bridgforth, Judge Jones, and Judge Weeks for accepting 

reappointment to this important commission.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1420

LEBON BRUCE WALKER, a/k/a Larry Gene Platt;

PATRICIA ANNETTE LEE-WALKER, a/k/a Angie

Platt,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

PERRY LONDON, individually and official capacity as a Bail Bondsman; LONDON BAIL BONDING

INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY COMPANY, London Bonding

Agency, Incorporated, and/or Entity, et al;

DENNIS COX, individually and in his official

capacity as a Bailman and Bounty Hunter, an

agent of London Bail Bonding International

Fidelity Company, London Bonding Agency,

Incorporated, and/or Equity, et al; DENNIS

COX, individually and in his official capacity

as a Private Detective, Private Investigator,

Agent and Owner of Harford Bureau of Investigation & Process, Ltd., and/or Entity, et al;

HARFORD BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY, Harford Bureau of Investigations & Process, Ltd.,

and/or Entity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually

and in his official capacity as an Agent

and/or Repo Officer for Toyota Motor Credit

Company, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,

and/or Entity, et al; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, AND/OR

ENTITY,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-1629-DKC)

Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeBon Bruce Walker, Patricia Annette Lee-Walker, Appellants Pro Se.

David Eugene Furrer, I. Steven Seigel, John Andrew Schruefer, Jr.,

SEIGEL, TULLY & FURRER, Baltimore, Maryland; Francis Joseph Gorman,

GORMAN & WILLIAMS, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael N. Russo, Jr.,

FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & HEFFERNAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

LeBon Walker and Patricia Lee-Walker appeal from the district

court’s orders denying relief on their civil rights complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Walker v. London, No. CA-95-1629-DKC (D. Md. Feb.

1, 1996 and Feb. 21, 1997). 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
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Con Baker
- Wei Wei
- Rosemarie Hammond
- Robert Davis
- John Hartung
- Ing Ming Lee
- Lev Nemchinov
- Anna Smigocki
- Yan Zhao

Jim's Testheadline bar Beet Mosaic Virus pdf Beet Mosaic Virus word doc


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10567

Conference Calendar

 

BRUCE ARNOLD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C.A. DILLAHA, M.D.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CV-190-C

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1999

Before BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Bruce Arnold, Texas prisoner no. 609239, appeals the

district court’s order granting summary judgment for the

defendant, C.A. Dillaha, M.D., and dismissing Arnold’s complaint

as frivolous. Arnold argues that Dillaha was deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs by using an improper

method to remove a foreign object embedded in Arnold’s eye and by

failing or refusing to provide follow-up treatment with a 
No. 98-10567

-2-

ophthalmologist. We have reviewed Arnold’s arguments and the

record on appeal and find that his claims are premised upon

disagreement with the medical treatment he received which,

standing alone, are insufficient to support a violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th

Cir. 1995); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.

1991).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment

in favor of Dillaha, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), nor did it abuse

its discretion in dismissing his claim as frivolous. See Martin

v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
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 Amended Annual Report of Amincor, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended  December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on April 15, 2011 (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacity and on the date indicated below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.


Date: August 25, 2011                   /s/ Robert L. Olson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert L. Olson, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019246EN.01000701.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 27 March 2019 — LG, PK v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-259/19)

(2019/C 246/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LG, PK

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred

Whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, the following ruling is compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation.

And whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law, it is compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement.

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3337

_____________________________

JAMES BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

March 9, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

ROWE, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

James Brown, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant 

General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE AHORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TD(As AmTIN** Hoimret.le CwHge 8. Sheppard,Pe&e eEonordbleOoorgoHcSh8ppard,P8geS

In 8n8nrto~our flsst quo&&m we advlmepu th8ttheLaborCowl88ionerl8 notnqulredtouutha biluwq nor in the Stats 8oUsr InspeotlonRmdrs apap wntqplnetthe **@OOOO.OOOenemlRovama Appropriatlan**  **iarthereuan tit**  Lotion 18 of Houm Bill 552 spoultloil17 8tdi48thatmah mountaisyb8expen&aoutor
wlleotodundor the terw of the 

### Aotdurlnu the firstYe8r of its oRer8~10n. xr the 8t8tamoxlt In Jolw letteris oor- .wat * bdome nw on haul ln the fbndboos not **aontaln** ally aes conwtad auTlt3g the ilrmtyear ot alo opcr*tlon of muw Ill&l

se%
a wgrcd to yaw soaandqmstlon we are not mwlwd otuflalont Y onthaaot8ltuntlonC4deto~ whew 

### ornot mny lab%.UtyexS*t8,uid ii mmh lidlllty &oo8ex%8t aothor ltrou&l~stontlm Comptrolleror the L8Eor Lulwloxmr~ 

### IfyouwUladvlaeumhrtherln

APPFIOVEL'A~~~~~,

1939 Awh&,
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1743
LUZ D. WICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Florence. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1022-4-6JI) Submitted: October 28, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luz D. Wicks, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Lamar Paxton, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district co urt's order affirming the decision of the Commissioner which denied Appellant disability insurance benefits but granted supplemental insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wicks v. Apfel , No. CA-96-1022-4-6JI (D.S.C. May 2, 1997).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
#### SKIDMORE v. MYERS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Gertrude Skidmore against Frederick S. Myers. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
#### Gopinath SWAMYNATHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-4030.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 2011.

BEFORE: WHITE and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; and COHN, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an immigration case. Petitioner Gopinath Swamynathan (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which affirmed the denial of his application for relief from removal but remanded his case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) solely to reconsider the denial of his application for voluntary departure. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. (“Respondent”) moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the BIA’s order was not final due to the remand. A panel of this court denied Respondent’s motion, and directed the parties to address the issue of jurisdiction in their briefs.

During the pendency of this appeal, another panel of this court issued a published decision deciding the same jurisdictional issue presented in this appeal. In *Giraldo v. Holder,*654 F.3d 609 (6th Cir.2011), the panel, while concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order, declined to exercise jurisdiction for prudential reasons. In light of *Giraldo,*the petition for review of the BIA’s order denying withholding of removal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As explained in *Giraldo,*if Petitioner is granted voluntary departure, he may then decide whether to comply with the relevant departure provisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b), or file another petition for judicial review of his application for withholding of removal.