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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6708

CLINTON MCDANIELS; ROGER BAILEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

HAROLD L. PALMER; EACH AND EVERY OTHER INMATE

IN THE SAME SIMILAR SITUATION,

Plaintiffs,

versus

WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; NICHOLAS J. HUN, Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Corrections; ROY WHITE, Hospital Administrator;

ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING POWER TO TRANSFER

INMATES FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-116-2)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Clinton McDaniels, Roger L. Bailey, Appellants Pro Se. Silas Bent

Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Leslie

K. Kiser, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, West Virginia inmates, appeal the district court's

order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation

Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. McDaniels v. Duncil, No. CA-95-

116-2 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 15, 1996). 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
# C_2018414EN.01000501.xml

| 15.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/5

---

Special Report No 27/2018

The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money

(2018/C 414/07)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 27/2018 The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
# C_2018388EN.01000201.xml

| 26.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9103 — ORIX Aviation Systems/Bohai/Avolon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 388/03)

On 17 October 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9103. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9103. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Leonardo R. GERMAN, Petitioner, v. Jerry GOODWIN, Warden.

No. 19-5619

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         June 29, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G45, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Vanitha S. Raman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G45, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-7949,                         *vanitha.raman@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 8, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-12801 Filed 6-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Jody Lanardo WHITE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9692

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

*501Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
SMITH BARNEY INCOME FUNDS (the "Fund")
on behalf of the
Smith Barney Premium Total Return Fund

Supplement dated August 14, 2000
to Prospectus dated April 28, 2000

The information supplements certain information set forth in the
Prospectus of the Fund listed above under the section "Management."

Salomon Brothers Asset Management (SaBAM"), an affiliate of SSB Citi
Fund Management LLC (the "Manager") located at 7 World Trade Center, New
York, New York 10048, serves as subadviser to the Fund. SaBAM manages
the Fund's investment portfolio, subject to the supervision of the
Manager. SaBAM provides investment management and advisory services to
mutual funds and currently manages over $27.6 billion.



FD _____________
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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

July 26, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11169 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAULETTE McTIZIC, also known as Paulette Metizic,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(4:03-CR-36-ALL-Y)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This court affirmed Paulette McTizic’s conviction fo r bank

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and her 77-month sentence.

United States v. McTizic

, 03-11169, 2004 WL 2244209 (5th Cir. 30

Sept. 2004). The Supreme Court granted McTizic’s petition for writ

of certiorari and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP);

v acated our judgment; and remanded the case for further

consideration in the light of United States v. Booker

, 543 U.S.2

___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). McTizic v. United States , 125 S. Ct.

1682 (2005). We requested, and received, supplemental briefs

addressing the impact of Booker

. Having reconsidered our decision

pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instruction s, we reinstate our

judgment affirming the conviction and sentence.

For the first time in her petition for rehearing, McTizic

challenged the constitutionality of her sentence, b ased on the

then-recent holding in Blakely v. Washington

, 542 U.S.

____, 124 S.

Ct. 2531 (2004). Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not

consider a defendant’s B ooker -related claims presented for the

first time in a petition for rehearing. U nited States v.

Hernandez-Gonzalez , 405 F.3d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 2005).

McTizic has presented no evidence of extraordinary

circumstances. Even if showing such circumstances was not

required, because she did not raise her Booker -claims in district

court, any review would be only for plain error. S ee United States

v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), p etition for cert.

filed

, (U.S. 31 Mar. 2005) (No. 04-9517). Her claims would fail

the third prong of plain-error review because she does not show any

error affected her substantial rights; she makes no “showing that

the error

... affected the outcome of the district court

proceedings”. I d. at 521 (quotation omitted). In sum, because she

fails plain-error review, McTizic falls far short of showing the

requisite extraordinary circumstances.3 AFFIRMED
Ronnie C. BROWN, Petitioner v. Jeff MACOMBER, Warden, et al.

No. 19-5717

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Donald DEWEES, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-57

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Fairly W. EARLS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5377

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                             <C>
PERIOD-TYPE>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                    44,646
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          44,646
<PP&E>                                                    18,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         6,519,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    734,949
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  74,096
<OTHER-SE>                                             5,231,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           6,519,100
<SALES>                                                   40,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          40,000
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      10,085,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        97,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (10,143,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (10,143,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (10,143,238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.22)





</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2015

p0421 

# Order

Clerk April 24, 2015

151200

In re ALI

- MALIKI/ALEXANDER/ SC: 151200

AL

- DHEFERY, Minors

. COA: 321420

Wayne CC Family Division:

01

- 402578

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuad ed that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 35849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee; Meetings

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) 
will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sean Parman, Office of National 
Public Liaison, at 202-317-6247 or send an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#19496c7b75707a557078706a767759706b6a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3a386919f9a90bf9a929a809c9db39a8180dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 a public meeting of the ETAAC will be held on Wednesday, June 29, 
2022, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. EDT at 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC, 20224. The purpose of the ETAAC is to provide 
continuing advice regarding the development and implementation of the 
IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. ETAAC is 
an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax 
administration issues such as prevention of identity theft and refund 
fraud. It supports the overriding goal that paperless filing should be 
the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information 
returns. ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of IRS 
electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive 
observations about current or proposed policies, programs and 
procedures, and suggest improvements. Due to limited seating and 
security requirements, call or email Sean Parman to confirm your 
attendance. Mr. Parman can be reached at 202-317-6247 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93c3e6f1fffaf0dffaf2fae0fcfdd3fae1e0bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e5e7b6c62676d42676f677d61604e677c7d20696178">[email protected]</span></a>. Should you wish the ETAAC to consider a written 
statement, please call 202-317-6247 or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d5d786f61646e41646c647e62634d647f7e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e2e0b1c12171d32171f170d11103e170c0d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 8, 2022
Nina M. Lachin,
Acting Branch Chief, National Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2022-12705 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2018048EN.01000101.xml

| 9.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8569 — Europcar/Goldcar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 48/01)

On 5 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8569. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8569. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN RE Ronald D. VETETO, Petitioner

No. 18-9421

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
UTIER, Petitioner v. FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD, et al.

No. 18-1521

Supreme Court of the United States.

September 11, 2019

Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motions for divided argument, a total *33of 80 minutes is allotted for consolidated oral argument on both questions presented, and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes to the Financial Oversight and Management Board, 20 minutes to the Solicitor General, 30 minutes to Aurelius Investment, LLC, et al., and 10 minutes to UTIER.
**
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of HeadHunterGroup PLC for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

I, Grigorii Moiseev, ChiefFinancial Officer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

 
Date: March 13, 2020  By: 
/s/ Grigorii Moiseev
   Grigorii Moiseev   
**Chief Financial Officer**

***(Principal Financial Officer)***
**
Victor Hugo SALDANO, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5171

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

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