alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6522

J. ANGELO BARNES, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv02943-AMD) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Angelo Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: J. Angelo Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
NO. 07-08-0153-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 26, 2008

______________________________

MICHAEL GOFF, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY;

NO. 43,950-B; HONORABLE ROY T. SPARKMAN, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Following an open plea of guilty, appellant, Michael Goff, was convicted of

possession and transportation of chemicals with intent to manufacture a controlled

substance. The trial court assessed punishment at 10 years incarceration in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed

his notice of appeal. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed. Appellant’s

brief was due to be filed on July 30, 2008, but has not yet been filed. Further, no motion

for extension of time has been filed.
2

By letter, dated August 6, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s retained attorney of

the failure and also explained that, if no response was received by August 18, 2008, the

appeal would be abated pursuant to Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. We have received no response and accordingly now abate the appeal and

remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and

(3). On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine the

following:

1. Whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. If so, whether appellant’s counsel has abandoned the appeal;

3. Whether appellant’s present counsel, given her failure to file a brief,

will pursue the appeal;

4. If not, whether appellant is indigent and the appointment of new

counsel is necessary.

Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and is

indigent and that new counsel should be appointed, the trial court shall appoint new

counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name,

address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be

included in an order appointing counsel, a copy of which shall be immediately forwarded

to the Clerk of this Court. In any event, the trial court shall execute findings of fact and

conclusions of law addressing the issues identified above. The trial court shall also

execute any other orders that are necessary to address the aforementioned issues. The

trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as any orders that it may issue

shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. A supplemental reporter’s record shall
3

be prepared of any hearings held in this matter. The trial court shall file the supplemental

clerk’s record and any supplemental reporter’s record with the Clerk of this Court by

September 26, 2008.

It is so ordered.

 Per Curiam

Do not publish.
STATE v. JEFFRIES.

No. COA07-1049.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (06CRS59766).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00964-CV

Style: In re TMX Finance of Texas, Inc; TitleMax of Texas, Inc.; and TMX 

Finance LLC

Date motion filed*: December 8, 2014

Type of motions: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to

Mandamus Petition

Parties filing motions: Real Parties in Interest

Document to be filed: Response

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 16, 2014

 Denied

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

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Although relators did not include the reporter’s record because they stated in their 

verification that no evidentiary testimony or exhibits were submitted at the hearing,

the RPIs state that this record is needed for resolution of the petition and that the 

parties have requested it on an expedited basis and expected it early last week. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4(e), 52.7(a)(2). Accordingly, the real parties in interests’ motion 

for a 1-week extension of time to file a response to the mandamus petition is granted

until December 16, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2),10.5(b)(1). 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: December 16, 2014
# CE2004084EN.01002802.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/28

---

(2004/C 84 E/0031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Opinion of the OLAF Supervisory Committee on the Eurostat Task Force

Subject:

On 9 July 2003 the Commission decided to set up a Task Force to investigate the complaints against Eurostat. The Task Force is intended to speed up the internal and external enquiries previously managed by the OLAF Anti-Fraud Office alone.

This infringes OLAF's powers to conduct investigations independently, which Parliament and the Council expressly guaranteed in Regulation (EC) 1073/1999 (1) of 25 May 1999.

1

Before the decision of 9 July 2003, did the Director and/or the Commission consult the OLAF Supervisory Committee, which has the task of safeguarding the independence of the Anti-Fraud Office?

If not, why not?

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

1

---
LANE v. AMERICAN NAT. CAN CO.

No. COA08-835.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 963599).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

____________________________________ ) AMERI CAN CIVI LL I BERTI ES UNI ON, ) ) AMERI CAN CIVI LL I BERTI ES UNI ON ) FOU NDATI ON, ) ) Pla int if fs , )

) v . ) C i v i l A c t i o nN o . 0 8
- 0 0 4 3 7 ( R C L) ) DEPARTMENT OF DEF ENSE, ) ) CENTRALI

NTEL L I GENCE AGEN CY, ) ) De fe nd ants . ) ____________________________________)
OR DE R For the re asons set for

th in the acc ompanying me morandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that def

endants’ Motion [21] for Summary J udg ment is GRANTED. J udg ment is hereby

enter ed dismissing this case with prejudice
. SO ORDERED.
Signed by Roy ce C. L amber

th, Chief J udg e, on Oc tober 16, 2009.
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2239 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2239 of 2 December 2015 concerning certain protective measures in relation to highly            pathogenic avian influenza of subtypes H5N1 and H5N2 in France (notified under document C(2015) 8755) (Only the French text            is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2239                     

# of 2 December 2015

# concerning certain protective measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtypes H5N1 and H5N2 in France

# *(notified under document C(2015) 8755)*

# (Only the French text is authentic)

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2460 of 23 December 2015 concerning certain protective measures in relation to                                 highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5 in France (notified under document C(2015) 9818) (Text with EEA relevance).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED E DWARD CHARLES REDMOND , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 448 LT Case No. 2015

- CF

- 012387

- C

- O STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decisio n filed August 3 0, 2 022 3.850 A ppeal f rom the C ircuit C ourt for Orange C ounty , Elaine A. B arbour , Judge. David M

. L amos, F t. P ierce, f or A ppe llant. Ashley M oody, A ttorney G eneral, Tallahassee, an d B onnie Jean P arrish, Assistant A ttorney G eneral, D aytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

COHEN , TRAVER and NARDELLA , JJ., c onc ur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00059-CR

______________________________

DAVID CHARLES FITTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

 Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 114-2295-07

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
This case has been transferred to this Court as part of the Texas Supreme Court's docket 1

equalization program.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Charles Fitts appeals from his conviction for the offense of aggravated assault with

a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00. 1

Fitts' notice of appeal was filed March 19, 2008, and the clerk's record was filed March 31,

2008. The reporter's record was due June 19, 2008, and has not been filed. Fitts is not indigent.

Therefore, he is responsible for paying for, or making arrangements to pay for, preparation of the

appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a), (b). 

On July 18, 2008, we mailed a letter to Fitts' retained counsel, stating that, if we did not

receive information showing that Fitts was making a substantial and tangible effort to prosecute the

appeal by showing either a reasonable attempt to obtain a reporter's record or by filing a brief based

solely on the clerk's record within ten days of the letter, we would dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. Fitts has not contacted this Court. We have also contacted the court reporter and have

been informed that Fitts has not contacted her.
3

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.4;

Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 14, 2008

Date Decided: August 15, 2008

Do Not Publish
STATE of North Carolina v. Colt Lewis BARBER.

No. COA15-396.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed and Remanded.
# CE2004070EN.01019601.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/196 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/196

---

(2004/C 70 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/03

by John Hume (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   European Carrefours

Subject:

Can the Commission explain why the Directorate-General for Press and Communication has announced the sudden termination of operating grants to the 138 members of the European Carrefour Network? Will it reconsider the decision and ensure that funding continues into 2004?

---
STATE of North Carolina, v. Franklin CRUZ, Defendant.

No. COA14-1404.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 495/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 495/2014 of 13 May 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 495/2014                     

# of 13 May 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 May 2014.

*For the Commission*,                           

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
# CE2004088EN.01037901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/379 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/379

---

(2004/C 88 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Road transport managers

Subject:

Is the Commission of the opinion that, in order to implement correctly Council Directive 96/26/EC (1) on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator [etc.], a Member State must require road transport operators to employ a road transport manager, in the strict sense of the term (i.e. have an employer/employee relationship according to national law), as opposed to having a different contractual relationship (such as a contract for services with a self-employed manager) that meets all the requirements imposed by the Directive?

1

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

(16 July 2003)

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations, stipulates that where a transport operator is a natural person but does not himself possess the required professional competence, he must have a designated transport manager, who satisfies the Directive's good repute and professional competence criteria and who continuously and effectively manages the transport operations. If the transport operator is not a natural person, the good repute criterion and professional competence criteria must still be satisfied by the transport manager, who again continuously and effectively manages the transport operations.

The Commission notes that in all cases the transport manager must be continuously and effectively managing the undertaking's transport operations. It is by this criterion that compliance with the Directive's requirements is to be judged. The Directive is however silent as to whether this can be achieved by directly employing a transport manager or by a different contractual arrangement and hence neither option is automatically excluded.

---

(1)  OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.

1

---
# CE2004070EN.01003001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/30

---

(2004/C 70 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0730/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:   ‘Prestige’: Measures for Natura 2000 network areas

Subject:

In 19 December 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster, paragraph 22 calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the Spanish authorities, to draw up special plans for the regeneration of the Natura 2000 areas affected.

On 21 November 2002, Parliament had already adopted a resolution on this issue; paragraph 14 reads:

| | Calls on the Commission to adopt specific measures in order to guarantee a proper ecological balance in the SCI areas of the Natura 2000 network affected by this catastrophe. |
| --- | --- |

Calls on the Commission to adopt specific measures in order to guarantee a proper ecological balance in the SCI areas of the Natura 2000 network affected by this catastrophe.

How does the Commission view these requests from Parliament?

What measures has it taken or does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

(2 May 2003)

According to its Resolution of 19 December 2002, the Parliament asked the Commission to provide specific measures in order to guarantee the ecological balance of the Natura 2000 site.

The role of the Commission in relation to the Natura 2000 network is clearly established in the Habitats Directive, (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) (1). In this case the Commission is not responsible for the maintenance and restoration at a favourable conservation status of the Natura 2000 sites. This is a Member States responsibility. However, the Commission is aware of the exceptional circumstances of this situation.

1

Within the framework of Commission responsibilities the Commission has carried out the bio-geographical seminar for the Atlantic region in order to adopt the Atlantic list of sites of Community importance in order to guarantee Member States the application of provisions under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to written questions E-3661/02 (2) and P-0001/03 (3) where the possibilities of using financial instruments available at the EU level are described.

2

3

Finally, the Commission could consider — upon request — any specific measure regarding restoration activities in the framework of the Habitats Committee.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

1

(2)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 67.

2

(3)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 166.

3

---
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00463-CR

Antonio A. MATA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-03-10,898-CR-A

Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 29, 2008

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Antonio A. Mata pled nolo contendere to murder and

was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain

agreement. The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After

Mata filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal
04-08-00463-CR

-2-

to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2)

certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). 

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by

written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to

appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain,

establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by

the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record does not include

a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its

permission to appeal. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this

is a plea-bargain case and that Mata does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if

a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”

Id. 25.2(d). 

We, therefore, warned Mata that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he had the right

to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State,

110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification

has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH