alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Emmanuel C. IWUOHA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7295.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Palash Benedict D. COSTA, et al., petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-1231.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

*1565Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before MULLIGAN, FEBBO, SCHASBERGER Appellate Military Judges

Sergeant SHAQUILLE CRAIG

United States Ar my, Petitioner

v. Colonel MARK A. BRIDGES, Unite d States Army, Military Judge Respondent

and

UNITED STATES Real Party in Interest

ARMY MISC 20180632

--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND ACTION ON PETITION FOR

EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

MULLIGAN, Senior Judge:

Petitioner seeks extra ordinary relief from a ruling of the mili tary judge denying petitioner’s motion to c ompel appointment of an expert consultant to the petitioner’s defense team in the form of an attorney learned in the law of capital litigation. Petit ioner relies on United States v. Gonzalez , 39 M.J. 459 , 461 (C.M.A. 1994), for the test of when appointment of an expert consultant is required. In the alternative, petitioner requests this court “appo int an expert consultant as counsel for the petitioner.”

To qualify for the extraordinar y relief he seeks , petitioner mu st demonstrate, among other things, “th ere is no othe r adequate mean s to attain relief[.]” Hasan v.

Gross , 71 M.J. 416, 418 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (citing Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C. , 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 ( 2004). The availabi lity of direct appe al after trial is considered an “other adequate means” of relief. See Dew v. United States , 48 M.J. 639, 648 (Army Ct. Crim . App. 1998). A milita ry judge’s denial of a defense request to compel the appointment of an expert con sultant is a matter properly reviewed on direct appeal. See Gonzalez , 39 M.J. at 459-61.

For the foregoing reasons, and b ased on the reasoning, logic, a nd dicta set
forth in United States v. Hennis , 77 M.J. 7 (C.A. A.F. 2017), the petition is DENIED.

Petitioner’s request f or the appointment of appellate counsel i s DENIED as

moot.CRAIG—ARMY MISC 20180632

2 Judge SCHASBERGER concurs.

FEBBO, Judge, concurring:

I concur with the reasoning and result of the majority’s dispo sition of this matter. I write separ ately to clarify that our decision today is based on the criteria
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus an d the unusual nature o f appellant’s request for an expert consultant.

As our superior court has noted, regardless of the ripeness of issues before this court, appropriat e parties “may most ce rtainly do what is ‘prudent’ and ‘appropriate’ in the instant case.” Hennis

, 77 M.J. at 11. Nothing precludes petitioner from requesting a ppointment of learned counsel as learned counsel

— rather than as an expert consultant —in the future. W hether such a req uest should be granted after 1 January 2019 in light of o ur superior court’s a nalysis regarding “future capital litigants” is a question not bef ore us today. See id. at 9-10.

DATE: 14 December 2018

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
# L_2008024EN.01005204.xml

| 29.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/52

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the facilitation of the issuance of visas

The Agreement between the European Community and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the facilitation of the issuance of visas entered into force on 1 January 2008, the procedure provided for in Article 14 of the Agreement having been completed on 30 November 2007.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 400 

To amend title 39 of the United States Code to direct the Postal Regulatory 

Commission to promulgate regulations to establish rates of postage for 

packages shipped by priority mail from the United States to a foreign 

Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post Office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2019 

Mr. NORCROSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39 of the United States Code to direct 

the Postal Regulatory Commission to promulgate regulations to establish rates of postage for packages shipped 

by priority mail from the United States to a foreign 

Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post 

Office. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Care Packages for Our 

5 Heroes Act of 2019’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 400 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES OF POSTAGE FOR 

2 PACKAGES SHIPPED BY PRIORITY MAIL 

3 FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A FOREIGN 

4 ARMY POST OFFICE, FLEET POST OFFICE, OR 

5 DIPLOMATIC POST OFFICE. 

6 Section 3633 of title 39 of the United States Code 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(c) EXEMPTION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), 

9 not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 

10 of this subsection, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall 

11 promulgate regulations to establish rates of postage for 

12 packages shipped by priority mail from the United States 

13 to a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplo14 matic Post Office address whereby a person may not be 

15 charged for such packages traveling through a zone other 

16 than a first zone or a second zone (as defined in section 

17 4040 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, respec18 tively).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Hugo MONROY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7024.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Charles M. CERNY, et al., petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

No. 17-8372.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|Name                              |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|dELiA*s Operating Company         |  | Delaware                     
|dELiA*s Distribution Company      |  | Delaware                     
|dELiA*s Retail Company            |  | Delaware                     
|dELiA*s Group Inc.                |  | Delaware                     
|dELiA*s Properties Inc.           |  | Delaware                     
|dELiA*s Foreign Sales Corporation |  | Barbados                     
|iTurf Finance Company             |  | Delaware                     
|OnTap.com Inc.                    |  | New Jersey                   
|Caveman Disposition Corp.         |  | Massachusetts                
|Screeem! Inc.                     |  | Delaware                     
|SBH Restructuring Corp.           |  | Delaware                     
|TSI Soccer Restructuring Corp.    |  | North Carolina               
|TSI Retail Restructuring Corp.    |  | Delaware                     
|dELiA*s Brand LLC                 |  | Delaware                     

---

QuickLinks
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Johnny S. GASKINS.

No. D-3018.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
Marcus WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. Raymond ROBERTS, et al.

No. 17-5447.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3868 

To grant Members of Congress access to detention facilities, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2019 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (for herself, Ms. DEAN, Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL, 

Ms. SHALALA, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. RYAN, Ms. DELAURO, and 

Ms. WILSON of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 

Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To grant Members of Congress access to detention facilities, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Help Oversee, Manage, 

5 and Evaluate Safe Treatment and Ensure Access without 

6 Delay Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘HOMESTEAD Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3868 IH

1 SEC. 2. MANDATORY ACCESS TO DETENTION FACILITIES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—A Member of Congress may not 

3 be prevented from entering any detention facility for the 

4 purpose of conducting oversight. 

5 (b) TEMPORARY MODIFICATION.—The head of a de6 tention facility may not make any temporary modification 

7 at the detention facility in a manner that alters what is 

8 observed by a visiting Member of Congress. 

9 (c) NO NOTICE REQUIRED.—A Member of Congress 

10 shall not be required to provide notice of intent to enter 

11 a detention facility for the purpose of conducting over12 sight. 

13 (d) DETENTION FACILITY DEFINED.—In this sec14 tion, the term ‘‘detention facility’’ means any facility— 

15 (1) used to detain or otherwise house aliens; 

16 and 

17 (2) operated by or for— 

18 (A) the Department of Homeland Security 

19 (including any facility operated by a private 

20 contractor with the Department); or 

21 (B) the Department of Health and Human 

22 Services (including any facility operated by a 

23 private contractor with the Department). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Obel CRUZ-GARCIA, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-7641.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
# C_2011331EN.01000601.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Bell & Ross BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB

(Case C-426/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Signed original application lodged out of time - Regularisable defect)

2011/C 331/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bell & Ross BV (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2010 in Case T-51/10 Bell & Ross v OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden, whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2009 (Case R 1267/2008-3) in invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV — Signed original application lodged out of time — Concepts of ‘excusable error’ and ‘unforeseeable circumstances’ — Principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Manifest inadmissibility

Bell & Ross

OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
Plamen IORDANOV, petitioner, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY.

No. 17-5217.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
In Re Sean RAMSEY, petitioner.

No. 17-8288.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Guillermo FERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8884.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2

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

         I, Lester D. Sears, as Chief Financial Officer of WestPoint Stevens
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 operations of the
Company.


Dated:  August 14, 2003




                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Lester D. Sears
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

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

---

EXHIBIT 13.(a).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 Annual Report of Optiabse Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify
that to the best of our knowledge:

1.       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: April 12, 2006

| |  | 
Danny LustigerChief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------



---

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00170-CR

Jose NAVARRO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR4295B

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED May 1, 2013.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRST
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CORP'S. BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         184,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,695,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,000
<INVENTORY>                                    161,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,654
<PP&E>                                          84,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,000,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,722,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,365
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,000,943
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               740,071
<CGS>                                          122,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               431,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Gilberto LOPEZ-ROMO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5276.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Fritz BLANCHARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8980.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Release: 4104-98 (CFTC Docket 98-5)

For Release: February 9, 1998

CFTC INSTITUTES PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WILLIAM KOERNER
    AND IV GREAT RIVER CORP. -- BOTH OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA -- ALLEGING
    FRAUD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY SETTLES THE CHARGES

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has
    entered an Order Instituting Proceedings, Making Findings and Imposing
    Remedial Sanctions against William Koerner of Vero Beach, Florida,
    and IV Great River Corporation (GRC), a Delaware corporation
    controlled by Koerner and also located in Vero Beach. Koerner and GRC
    consented to the entry of the order. Koerner has not been registered with
    the CFTC in any capacity for the past 15 years; GRC has never been
    registered with the CFTC.

The CFTC order, filed on January 23, 1998, finds that from April 1995
    until at least June 13, 1996, Koerner, through IV Great River Corp.,
    defrauded at least one customer, who invested $40,000 with Koerner through
    GRC, after Koerner made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding
    the probability and magnitude of profits and risk of loss associated with
    futures and options trading.

In its order, the CFTC accepted Koerner's and GRC's offer of settlement,
    in which they neither admit nor deny the findings in the order.
    Specifically, the order contains findings that Koerner and GRC violated
    Sections 4b(a), 4(d)(1) and (2), 4k(1) and 9(a)(1) of the Commodity
    Exchange Act, and Sections 1.20(c), 1.33, 1.55 and 3.12 of the CFTC's
    regulations.

The CFTC order: 1) prohibits Koerner and IV Great River Corp from
    committing similar violations in the future; 2) bars both entities from
    trading on or subject to the rules of any contract market; and 3) directs
    all contract markets to refuse them trading privileges.

Though finding that Koerner's and GRC's violations warrant both
    restitution and a civil monetary penalty, the CFTC, on the basis of the
    respondents' financial condition, determined not to impose either
    sanction.
# C_2010288EN.01001401.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/14

---

Order of the Court of 9 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)) — Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Joined Cases C-286/09 and C-287/09) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Officials - Retirement pension - Cumulation of periods of insurance - Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Taking account of periods of activity within the European Communities - Article 10 EC)

(2010/C 288/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09)

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Roma — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community — Interpretation of Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC — Old-age pension — Aggregation of insurance periods — Failure to take into account the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities

Operative part of the order

Article 10 EC, together with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not permit account to be taken of years worked by a European Union citizen in a European Union institution, such as the Commission of the European Communities, or in a European Union body, such as the Economic and Social Committee, with regard to the establishment of a right to a retirement pension under the national scheme, regardless of whether the person involved takes early retirement or retires at the usual age.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.

---
Exhibit 32.3

          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 IA Global, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark
Scott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company , certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

         This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance
by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (or equivalent) with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.


                                        /s/ Mark Scott
                                        Mark Scott
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        April 14, 2004