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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6347

In Re: JAMES CLAUDE BAILEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-03-187)

Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005

Before KING and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Claude Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Claude Bailey petitions for writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for immediate release.

He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to

act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

we deny Bailey’s mandamus petition and his motion for appointment

of counsel. We further deny as moot his motion for expedited

response. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      68,941,300
<RECEIVABLES>                              199,794,700
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                        269,929,400
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         21,322,800
<PP&E>                                         854,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             622,533,700
<SHORT-TERM>                                52,800,000
<PAYABLES>                                 236,605,000
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                        267,017,200
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                           1,716,500
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,655,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       863,300
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,655,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               622,533,700
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            3,503,200
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         8,057,700
<COMMISSIONS>                                4,627,300
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                1,837,900
<FEE-REVENUE>                                2,770,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,520,600
<COMPENSATION>                               9,480,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,086,400)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (2,086,400)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,161,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
No. 76-5309.

#### Brooks et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19368]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information: please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: September 2, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19368 Filed 9-2-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will still be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 13, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, October 13, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website: *http://www.improveirs.org.* The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: September 3, 2021.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2021-19501 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# L_2009024EN.01000801.xml

| 28.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/8

---

AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

THE COURT,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the sixth paragraph of Article 223 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the sixth paragraph of Article 139 thereof,

Whereas it is necessary to clarify the number of ballots that may be held for the election of the President of the Court of Justice and the election of the Presidents of Chambers,

With the Council’s approval given on 27 November 2008,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE:

Article 1

The Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1) are hereby amended as follows:

Article 7(3) shall be replaced by the following:

‘The elections provided for in this Article shall be by secret ballot. The Judge obtaining the votes of more than half the Judges composing the Court shall be elected. If no Judge obtains that majority, further ballots shall be held until that majority is attained.’

Article 2

This amendment to the Rules of Procedure, which is authentic in the languages referred to in Article 29(1) of these Rules, shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following its publication.

Done at Luxembourg, 13 January 2009.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 176, 4.7.1991, p. 7.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DARLA MARNEY, 

Plaintiff, 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN,J., 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 3:15-cv-01759-JE 

JUDGMENT OF REMAND 

Based on my opinion and order, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is 

reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of 

Social Security for further administrative proceedings. JUDGMENT is entered for Plaintiff, and 

this case is closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATEDthis Zj dayofSeptember,2017. 

I-JUDGMENT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             315
<SECURITIES>                                     2,687
<RECEIVABLES>                                      503
<ALLOWANCES>                                        29
<INVENTORY>                                      1,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,486
<PP&E>                                             457
<DEPRECIATION>                                     161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,899
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           226
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,072
<SALES>                                          1,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,799
<CGS>                                            1,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    17
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     16
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,586)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-22-2005

PC Yonkers Inc v. Celebrations Party

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-4254

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"PC Yonkers Inc v. Celebrations Party" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 181.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/181
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

November 17, 2005

No. 04-4254 

 

P.C. YONKERS, INC; PARTY CITY CLIFTON, INC.; PARTY CITY OF HAMILTON

SQUARE, INC.; PARTY CITY OF LAWRENCEVILLE, INC.; PARTY CITY NORTH

BERGEN, INC.;

P.C. VOORHEES, INC.; EAST HARRISBURG, P.C., INC.; LANCASTER P.C., INC.;

MONTGOMERYVILLE P.C., INC.; PARTY CITY OF COTTMAN AVENUE, INC.;

PARTY CITY OF HARRISBURG, INC.; PARTY CITY OF LEHIGH VALLEY, INC.;

PARTY CITY OF READING, INC.; CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, INC.; PARTY CITY OF

NEW YORK, INC.; SCRANTON PARTY CITY LLC; STROUDSBURG P.C. INC.;

WILKESBARRE PARTY CITY LLC;PARTY CITY MANAGEMENT, CO., INC.,

 Appellants

v.

CELEBRATIONS THE PARTY AND SEASONAL SUPERSTORE, LLC;

ANDREW BAILEN; ANDREW HACK 

(D.of N.J. (Newark) Civil No. 04-cv-4554)

Present: ROTH, RENDELL, and BARRY, Circuit Judges

Motion by Counsel for Appellant to amend the Precedential

opinion to correct the name and address of counsel, Kenneth

L. Leiby, Jr., Esq.

 /s/ Lynn Lopez/rls 

Lynn Lopez

Response due 11/28/05 Case Manage 267-299-4922

 O R D E R 

The foregoing motion is granted and the opinion is amended to correct the name and

address of counsel, Kenneth L. Leiby, Jr., Esq.

By the Court,

/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell

Circuit Judge

Dated: November 22, 2005

CLW/cc: Michael Einbinder, Esq.

 Kenneth L. Lieby Jr., Esq.

 Karol C. Walker, Esq.

 Peter L. MacIsacc, Esq.
#### Franklin A. Roan, Respondent, v Judith Roan, Appellant.

*725The law is clear that any award of costs and counsel fees in connection with a custody proceeding or for bringing an appeal to this court is a matter to be resolved by the court before whom the application was made, as an exercise of its discretion *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]). Based on the instant record, there was no abuse of that discretion *(see, Matter of Bonnaci v Bonnaci,*89 AD2d 634). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LORI DIANE BACZKOWSKI,

Appellant, Civ. No. 6:16-cv-00150-MC

v. JUDGMENT

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON;

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION OF

WASHINGTON; and SELECT

PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Based on the record, the bankruptcy judge’s Adversary Dismissal Order is

AFFIRMED and this action is dismissed.

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2016.

____________________________

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 25 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-14-00984-CV

Style: Tiffany Thomas

v. T. Jayakumar, First Street Hospital, and First Surgical Partners, LLC

Date motion filed*: January 30, 2015

Type of motion: Appellees’ motion for recusal of the Honorable Chief Justice Sherry Radack

Party filing motion: Appellees First Street Hospital and First Surgical Partners, LLC

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3.

 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 Acting for the Court 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: February 12, 2015
Exhibit 4.1


 





 


This certifies
that _____________ is the stockholder of ______________ fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock, par value $ 0.0001, of
Century Therapeutics, Inc., hereinafter designated the "Corporation", transferable on the books of the Corporation in person
or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate and the shares represented hereby,
are issued and shall be held subject to all of the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the bylaws of the Corporation,
to all of which each holder, by acceptance hereof, assents, and agrees to be bound. A statement of the rights, preferences, privileges
and restrictions granted to or imposed upon each class or series of shares of stock of the Corporation authorized to be issued and upon
the holders thereof as established by the Certificate of Incorporation or by any certificate of amendment may be obtained by any stockholder
upon request and without charge at the principal office of the Corporation. TRANSFER OF THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE MAY
BE RESTRICTED. SEE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE. In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its
duly authorized officers, effective as of __________. CSCentury Therapeutics, Inc. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Osvaldo Flores, President Douglas Carr, Secretar


 



    


     


    

 










 


THE SECURITIES
REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT AND HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED.
SUCH SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED, PLEDGED OR HYPOTHECATED UNLESS THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF SAID ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED
WITH OR UNLESS THE CORPORATION HAS RECEIVED AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO THE CORPORATION THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS
NOT REQUIRED. THE CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE MORE THAN ONE CLASS OF STOCK. THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RESTRICTED
STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT RELATIVE PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES OF ANY CLASS ARE SET FORTH IN THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
THE CORPORATION. THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE CORPORATION TO THE HOLDER HEREOF WITHOUT
CHARGE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST. THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER AND REPURCHASE RIGHTS
PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF A RESTRICTED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THIS CERTIFICATE AND
THE CORPORATION. THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT TO THE HOLDER HEREOF WITHOUT CHARGE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JESUS ACEVEDO-LANDIN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50437 

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-01481-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jesus Acevedo-Landin appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for attempted reentry 

of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Acevedo-Landin’s counsel has filed a brief 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-50437 

stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as 

counsel of record. We have provided Acevedo-Landin the opportunity to file a pro 

se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been 

filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Bold, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Brien, J.), rendered October 19, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Naro, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In reviewing suppression issues, great weight must be accorded the hearing court’s determination. Where, as here, that determination is supported by the record, it should not be disturbed *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561; *People v Norris,*122 AD2d 82).

We further find that the defendant was not denied his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to retain private counsel, but was either unable or unwilling to do so. Court-appointed counsel will not be removed except for good cause shown *(see, People v Sawyer,*57 NY2d 12, 18-19, *cert denied*459 US 1178) and the defendant’s mere statement of dissatisfaction with his experienced trial counsel did not constitute a showing of good cause. It is also apparent from the record that while the defendant’s application to proceed *pro se*was initially granted, he thereafter changed his mind and requested an attorney. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, the defendant was not denied his right to counsel.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome T. Cisson, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.