alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30242 Summary Calendar

EARL LEE BALLENGER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES C. FOTI, JR. Sheriff, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office; DONALD NIDES, Detective, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2136-N

- - - - - - - - - - November 24, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Earl Lee Ballenger, Louisiana prisoner # 370855, proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Sheriff Charles Foti and Detective Donald Nides. The case proceeded to a bench trial before the magistrate judge on the consent of the parties. Ballenger asserts that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing his claim against Detective Nides for illegal arrestNo. 97-30242 -2- and in dismissing his claim against Sheriff Foti for failing to give him an appearance before a judicial officer within 72 hours of his arrest. Ballenger asserts that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on his motion for a default judgment, and he raises various other claims related to the magistrate judge’s treatment of pretrial and trial matters. Ballenger also asserts that the magistrate judge did not allow him to present his claim for illegal detention. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties, and we AFFIRM the dismissal of Ballenger’s complaint for essentially the same reasons articulated by the magistrate judge.
See Ballenger v. Pennington , No. 96-2136 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
#### Roberto JURADO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-56016.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 8, 2009.

Roberto Jurado, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Erika D. Jackson, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*79Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Jurado, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Jurado contends that the jury instructions given at his trial improperly relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of due process. However, in light of the jury charge as a whole, the parties’ closing arguments, and the extensive evidence establishing that Jurado committed the crime, Jurado has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instructions in a way that violates the Constitution. *See Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this contention was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Scott  Edwards,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Radix  Marine (the  "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal
            quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

      (2)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: May 17, 2004

                              /s/ Scott Edwards
                              -----------------
                              Scott Edwards
                              Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023047EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2022-2023 SESSION

Sittings of 4 to 7 July 2022

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
# L_2008332EN.01S00301.xml

| 10.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 332/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 332/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7396

WAYNE RESPER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES; NURSE BRENDA REECE; NURSE BEVERLY MCLAUGHLIN; NURSE CARLA BUCK; ALAN WILT; DIANE HENSEL; BERNICE; RYAN BROWNING; RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 02014

- PJM )

Submitted : April 18, 2019 Decided: April 22, 2019

Before AGEE, THACKER , and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Wayne Resper, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Resper seeks to appea l the district court’s o rder denying his motion to compel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Benef icial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The
order Resper seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 120 

Recognizing the 1 year anniversary of the April 2, 2010, fire and explosion 

at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, Washington. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2011 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. CANTWELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 1 year anniversary of the April 2, 2010, 

fire and explosion at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, 

Washington. 

Whereas the State of Washington, the community of 

Anacortes, the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, 

and the United Steelworkers experienced a tragedy on 

April 2, 2010, when a fire occurred at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, Washington; 

Whereas 7 workers died as a result of the tragedy: Daniel J. 

Aldridge, Matthew C. Bowen, Donna Van Dreumel, Matt 

Gumbel, Darrin J. Hoines, Lew Janz, and Kathryn Powell; 

Whereas the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board continues to investigate and review the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 120 ATS 

April 2, 2010, refinery fire, and procedures and processes 

to prevent future tragedies from occurring; 

Whereas the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries issued a Citation and Notice of Assessment covering 44 violations of State workplace safety and health 

regulations at the Anacortes work site (which are being 

appealed); and 

Whereas the fire and explosion at the Tesoro refinery is a reminder of the dangerous nature of refinery operations 

around the Nation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses sincere condolences to the fami3 lies, loved ones, United Steelworkers, fellow workers, 

4 and the Anacortes community concerning the trag5 edy at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, Wash6 ington; 

7 (2) honors Daniel J. Aldridge, Matthew C. 

8 Bowen, Donna Van Dreumel, Matt Gumbel, Darrin 

9 J. Hoines, Lew Janz, and Kathryn Powell; and 

10 (3) expresses support for the efficient and safe 

11 operation of our Nation’s oil refineries. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11012

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tony Gonzalez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-40-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tony Gonzalez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

_____________________

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11012 Document: 00516697300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-11012

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-11012 Document: 00516697300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
1The HONORABLE SARAH W. HAYS, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2641

___________

Terry L. Gerber, in propria persona, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 13, 2000

 Filed: April 21, 2000

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terry L. Gerber appeals the district court&s

1

 grant of summary judgment for the

United States in this injunctive-relief and quiet-title action. Having carefully reviewed

the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district court properly

granted the United States summary judgment for the reasons stated in the district

court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jack Gregory, certify that:



(1)    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Premier Holding Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2010;





(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(s) 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;





(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 of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: September 16, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------
#### MATTIE DeNIKE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

October 31, 1960.

*Mr. David D.*Furman, attorney general, and *Mr. Lee A. Holley*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Franklin W. KieTb*for the respondent.

Granted.
# C_2019246EN.01004301.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/43

---

Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)

(Case T-332/19)

(2019/C 246/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Balmain SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain) — Application for registration No 17 515 115

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 in Case R 1224/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the registration of EU trade mark No 17 515 115 for the rejected goods in Classes 14 and 26; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the registration of EU trade mark No 17 515 115 for the rejected goods in Classes 14 and 26;

| — | order any party who opposes this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any party who opposes this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

AUDRIE BLOOM , Appellant,

v.

IRONHORSE PROPER T Y OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida not

- for

- profit

- corporation, RICHARD LITNER and DONALD GUNDERMANN , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 1985

[ April 11, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cymonie Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014CA001934 AO

.
Audrie Bloom, Boynton Beach, pro se.

Therese A. Savona and Kathryn L. Ender of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.,
M iami, for appellee Ironhorse Property Owners Association Inc

.

G ERBER , C.J

.
A property owners association’s former board member appeal s from the circuit court’s final judgment confirming a voluntary binding arbitration

awa rd in the association ’s favor

. Because the former board member’s appeal does not raise a constitutional issue, w e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 44.104 , Florida Statutes (2016) :

(10) An appeal of a voluntary binding arbitration decision shall be taken to the circuit court and shall be limited to review on the record and not de novo, of:

(a) Any alleged failure of the arbitrators to comply with the applicable rules of procedure or evidence.

(b) Any alleged partiality or misconduct by an arbitrator preju dicing the ri ghts of any party.2 (c) Whether the decision reaches a result contrary to the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Florida.

. . . .
(12)

. . . No further review shall be permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised

.

§ 44. 104(10), (12), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). S ee also Kaplan v. Epstein , 219 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“ Pursuant to section 44.104 , whe n parties agree to submit to voluntary binding arbitration, their appeal is to the circuit court, and no further review is permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised.”).

Dismissed

.

M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3542

___________

James A. Widtfeldt *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* Tax Court.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 25, 2012

Filed: April 30, 2012

___________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Widtfeldt appeals from a decision of the Tax Court dismissing his

1

petition for lack of jurisdiction. Following careful de novo review, see Bartman v.

Comm’r, 446 F.3d 785, 787 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that appellate court reviews

de novo tax court’s conclusion of law, including determination regarding its

jurisdiction),we conclude that the dismissal was appropriate for the reasons discussed

by the Tax Court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the

pending motions.

 ______________________________

The Honorable John O. Colvin, Chief Judge, United States Tax Court. 1
Case 10-00877 Doc 12 Filed 01/19/10 Entered 01/21/10 09:57:35 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
----

            COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2005/80/EC

of 21 November 2005         

amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC, concerning cosmetic products, for the purposes of adapting Annexes II and III thereto to technical progress

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), and in particular Article 4b and Article 8(2) thereof,

After consulting the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Annexes II and III to Directive 76/768/EEC are amended in accordance with the text set out in the Annex to this Directive.

Article 2

Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that from 22 August 2006 cosmetic products which fail to comply with this Directive are not placed on the market by Community manufacturers or by importers established within the Community.

Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that those products are not sold or disposed of to the final consumer after 22 November 2006.

Article 3

1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 22 May 2006 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2.   Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 4

This Directive shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 5

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 November 2005.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2005/52/EC (OJ L 234, 10.9.2005, p. 9).

(2)OJ L 66, 11.3.2003, p. 26.

(3)OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2004/73/EC (OJ L 152, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

(4)OJ L 66, 4.3.2004, p. 45.

(5)OJ L 300, 25.9.2004, p. 13.

----

ANNEX

Annexes II and III to Directive 76/768/EEC are amended as follows:

----

(1)  for the individual ingredient see reference number 364 in Annex II.

(2)  for the individual ingredient see reference number 413 in Annex II.’         

----
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 222 Filed 10/27/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Kennerly, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered October 4, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Under the circumstances of this case, where defendant, who exactly matched the description of the burglar, was apprehended a very short distance from the crime scene only *625minutes after the crime, the police acted properly in arranging a prompt on-the-scene showup *(see, e.g., People v Brnja,*70 AD2d 17, *affd*50 NY2d 366; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023; *People v Soto,*87 AD2d 618). Nor can it be said that the showup in the instant case was unduly suggestive, where the hearing court determined that defendant was brought to the scene in an unmarked car, was not handcuffed, and was immediately identified without any prompting or other improper comments from the officers to the complainant, and these findings are amply supported by the evidence.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.