alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10518

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CURTIS MITCHELL O’BRIEN,

a/k/a Rudolph P. (Peter) Heim,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:89-CR-009-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Mitchell O'Brien, federal prisoner # 17872-077, appeals

the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion

for return of property. O’Brien seeks the return of his aircraft

seized on April 5, 1989. The district court denied his Rule 41(e)

motion without a response from the Government and without giving

any reasons for the denial. O’Brien argues on appeal that the

district court erred in denying his motion without a response by
No. 97-10518

-2-

the Government and without giving reasons. He contends that he has

shown that his right to due process was violated by no notice or

hearing of forfeiture.

The allegations in O’Brien’s motion are specific and warranted

a response by the Government. The record contains no information

to support the district court’s summary denial of the motion

without reasons. The district court’s denial of the motion without

a response and without reasons leaves this court with no

opportunity for review. The district court abused its discretion.

United States v. Dean, 100 F.3d 19, 21 (5th Cir. 1996). See United

States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 220 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994)

(entreating “the district courts of this circuit to discharge their

obligation to make appropriate findings on the record whenever such

findings are called for”). The district court’s judgment is

VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the district court for

further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

(2006/C 268/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and other sectors which are the subject of special rules in regulations and directives governing all state aid within the sector.

----
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





I,
      Paul
      DePond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June
      30, 2007 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 Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.





By:
            /s/
                Paul F. DePondName:
            Paul
                F. DePondTitle:
            **Chief
                Executive Officer**





Date:
      August 14, 2007





I,
      Gerald
      W. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June
      30, 2007 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 Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.





By:
            /s/
                Gerald W. RiceName:
            Gerald
                W. RiceTitle:
            **Chief
                Financial Officer**




Date: August
      14, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Notify Technology Corporation and will be retained by Notify Technology
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

IRA CHARLES COOKE

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT 

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 48

 September Term, 2022 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Order Transferring the Respondent to 

Disability Inactive Status, filed by Acting Bar Counsel and Respondent, Ira Charles Cooke,

on August 25, 2023 in the above-captioned case, in which Parties jointly petition this Court 

to transfer Respondent to disability inactive status pursuant to Rule 19-736(c) and advise 

that Respondent consents to being transferred to disability inactive status for an indefinite 

period, it is this 25th day of August 2023,

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the Joint Petition is

GRANTED, and the Respondent, Ira Charles Cooke, is hereby transferred to disability

inactive status by consent for an indefinite period; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Ira Charles Cooke

from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund

of the Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with

Maryland Rule 19-761.

 /s/ Shirley M. Watts

 Senior Justice
#### MAMIE FERREIRA, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. PATRICK MASTROBERTE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

November 28, 1960.

*Messrs. Feder & Rinzler*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Robert F. Pollan*for the respondents.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7010
ALBERT MOSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; JAMES A. MCCAULLEY, Director; SWANSON COMMISSARY SERVICE; RICHLAND COUNTY; HARRIETTE HALL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-731-3-19BC) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action. The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice could be final if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending the complaint." Id. at 1066-67.Appellant could refile this action and timely follow the district court's orders regarding change of address and notification of desire to prosecute the action, and demonstrating that theaction is not repetitive. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because we find the dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. 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.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Appellate case name: Tammy Tran Attorneys at Law, LLP, Tammy Tran, PLLC, and Minh 

Tam Tran v. Spark Funding, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-20-00564-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-27154

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 30, 2021

Party filing motion: Appellants

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc rehearing. 

It is ordered that the motion is denied.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Julie Countiss__________

Acting for the En Banc Court

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: November 23, 2021
1

Filed 4/13/16 P. v. Kalogirou CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE 

KALOGIROU,

Defendant and Appellant.

E064531

(Super.Ct.No. SWF1501347)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith C. Clark, Judge. 

Affirmed.

William Paul Melcher, under the appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Christopher George Kalogirou appeals from his 

conviction and five-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell or give a 

controlled substance to a prison inmate. We affirm the judgment.
2

FACTS AND PROCEDURE 

On September 3, 2015, the People filed a first amended complaint alleging that on 

or about February 20, 2015, defendant conspired with an unknown person to commit the 

crime of selling or giving a controlled substance to a prison inmate. (Pen. Code, 

§ 4573.9.) The overt acts alleged are that the conspirators: (1) contacted each other by 

phone; (2) discussed “skaduche” being in a letter addressed from “Sharon Wood”; and 

(3) a letter addressed from “Sharon Wood” was sent to the Southwest Detention Center 

containing methamphetamine. The People also alleged defendant had three prior prison 

term convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Also on September 3, 2015, defendant pled guilty to the conspiracy charge and 

admitted the three prison term priors. The court immediately sentenced him to the 

middle term of four years, plus one year for one of the prison term priors, with four years 

in custody and one year of mandatory supervision.

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. 

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a 

summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct 

an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he 

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we 
3

have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable 

error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

J.

McKINSTER

J.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1099

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to acquire such land in the vicinity

of Pierre, South Dakota, as the Secretary determines is adversely affected

by the full wintertime Oahe Powerplant release.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to acquire such

land in the vicinity of Pierre, South Dakota, as the

Secretary determines is adversely affected by the full

wintertime Oahe Powerplant release.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF LAND NEAR PIERRE, SOUTH

4 DAKOTA.

5 To provide full operational capability to carry out the

6 authorized purposes of the Missouri River Main Stem

7 dams that are part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin

8 Program authorized by section 9 of the Act entitled ‘‘An
2

•S 1099 IS

1 Act authorizing the construction of certain public works

2 on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other pur3 poses’’, approved December 22, 1944, the Secretary of the

4 Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may ac5 quire, from willing sellers, such land in the vicinity of

6 Pierre, South Dakota, as the Secretary determines is ad7 versely affected by the full wintertime Oahe Powerplant

8 release.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,041
<SECURITIES>                                    11,101
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,475
<PP&E>                                           2,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,383
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,290
<SALES>                                         37,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,020
<CGS>                                            9,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (784)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (345)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### In re ANDERSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 15, 1907.)

In the matter of William H. Anderson.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10351 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROLANDO AVENDANO-ALEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-146-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rolando AvendanoAleman raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

(2004/C 78 E/0269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Obstacles to the free movement of workers in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Community law does not stop a Member State imposing an obligation to provide certain information on the conditions for posted workers in the Member State of posting, in particular their working and employment conditions as provided for in Directive 96/71/EC, as long as this information is justified from a worker protection perspective or by other pressing reasons of general interest and to the extent that they guarantee the implementation of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is required to achieve this objective. Certain measures of this kind may even prove necessary to comply with the obligations of Article 5 of this Directive.

The Commission is following the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC very closely and recently finished the final stage of a general evaluation of it. In July 2003, the Commission adopted a Communication (2) whose main objective was to identify persistent problems in the transposition and application of this Directive. In this context, it was found that improving the practical cooperation between the authorities responsible for supervising working and employment conditions could not only increase compliance with the provisions of the Directive but also render superfluous a certain number of national information and document-keeping obligations in the host Member State. A group of government experts was therefore created, at the Commission's initiative. This group is currently examining these questions in more detail.

At the same time, the Commission is very concerned about the transposition and implementation problems associated with Directive 96/71/EC in the Member States, including the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, of which it has been informed. It will be paying particular attention to the requirements mentioned by the Honourable Member and will be taking the necessary measures in its capacity as ‘Guardian of the Treaties’.

----

(1)OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

(2)  COM(2003) 458 final.

----
# C_2016106EN.01000101.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 106/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 98, 14.3.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 90, 7.3.2016

OJ C 78, 29.2.2016

OJ C 68, 22.2.2016

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016

OJ C 48, 8.2.2016

OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### Marc Soffler et al., Appellants, v Danny Isla, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 484]

In an action to recover damages for professional malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated March 9, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that at the time this action was commenced, the statute of limitations had expired, and in opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable *(see Zaborowski v Local 74, Serv. Empls. Intl. Union, AFL-CIO,*91 AD3d 768 [2012]; *Rakusin v Miano,*84 AD3d 1051 [2011]).

Actions for malpractice against nonmedical professionals are governed by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (6) *(see Town of Wawarsing v Camp, Dresser & Mc*
      *823
      *Kee, Inc.,*49 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2008]). A cause of action alleging professional malpractice against an engineer “accrues upon the completion of performance under the contract and the consequent termination of the parties’ professional relationship” *(id.*at 1101-1102; *see M.G. McLaren, P.C. v Massand Eng’g, L.S., P.C.,*51 AD3d 878 [2008]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant established, prima facie, that the professional relationship between the parties ended after the parties’ final communication on October 24, 2005. This action was commenced more than three years later. Additionally, the continuous representation doctrine does not apply in this case because the defendant did not provide continuous services to the plaintiffs and there was no mutual understanding that the plaintiffs required further assistance from him after his response to their final e-mail message *(see Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,*9 NY3d 1, 9 [2007]; *National Life Ins. Co. v Hall & Co. of NY.,*67 NY2d 1021, 1023 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.24


 





 


Republic of Nauru


 


Hon. Dominic J Tabuna, M.P


Minister for Commerce Industry & Environment,


Member for Yaren


A- Government
Offices, Yaren


T- +674 557 3133
ext 213


M- +674 557 3020


E- dominic.tabuna@naurugov.nr



 


11th April 2011


 


Mr. Nii Allotey Odunton


The Secretary General


International Seabed Authority


14-20 Port Royal
Street


Kingston, Jamaica


 


		Re:	Certificate of Sponsorship for Nauru Ocean Resources Inc.’s
Application for Approval of a Plan of Work for Polymetallic Nodule Exploration in the Area



 


Dear Secretary-General,


 


The Republic of Nauru (“the State”),
having ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 on 23 January 1996, hereby confirms sponsorship of Nauru
Ocean Resources Inc. in its application to the International Seabed Authority for a polymetallic nodule exploration contract.


 


The State certifies that Nauru Ocean Resources
Inc. is a registered national of Nauru having been incorporated within the jurisdiction of Nauru, and is subject to the effective control
of the State. Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. is controlled by Nauruan Nationals, with the majority of the Board of Directors being Nauruan,
and with all shareholders domiciled in Nauru.


 




     


     

    

 


Nauru hereby assumes responsibility in accordance
with article 139, article 153, paragraph 4, and Annex III, article 4, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea 1982.


 


Yours Sincerely,


 


	 	 	
	 	Hon. Dominic J Tabuna, M.P.	 
	 	Minister