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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-96-43)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Uzuegbunam appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Uzuegbunam’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny

a certificate of appealability, and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Uzuegbunam, No. CR-96-43 (E.D.

Va. Nov. 26, 2001). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER TIM FLORENCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00497-JAB-1; 1:07-cv-00489-JAB-PTS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Tim Florence, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Tim Florence seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Florence 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
Robert A. IZYDORE, Petitioner, v. CITY OF DURHAM (DURHAM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT[) ] 1 , Respondent.

No. COA14-1378.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE v. Marlon E. MENDOZA-MEJIA.

No. 420P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 21, 2015.

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Mendoza-Mejia, Marlon E.

John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of December 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of December 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01001801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/18

---

(2004/C 78 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0487/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject:   El Khosheh judgment

Subject:

In its reply to my Written Question E-3652/02 (1) the Commission states that it:‘... was encouraged by the initial measures taken by the Egyptian authorities to restore calm to the area and bring those responsible to justice’.

1

Is the Commission aware that the police stood by inactive when the disturbances occurred in El Khosheh in January 2000, and has it raised the role of the police with the Egyptian authorities?

Is the Commission aware that the judicial verdict in the case relating to the violence in El Khosheh in January 2000 is to be announced on 27 February 2003?

Will the Commission be present when the judgment is passed and can it issue a report on this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

(18 March 2003)

The Commission's understanding is that security forces were quickly brought in from outside to El Khosheh to restore law and order, possibly in recognition that the local police in El Khosheh were unable to do so. The villages were also visited almost immediately by Ministers and senior officials with an explicit brief to restore calm and to give assurances that those responsible for the outrages would be brought to justice. These immediate reactions contrasted strongly and positively with the official reactions to previous events in El Khosheh although questions remain concerning the behavior of local security forces.

The Commission is aware that the initial verdicts at the first trial were seen by many Coptic commentators as falling far short of assurances that the guilty would pay for their misdeeds. The verdict of the retrial announced on 27 February 2003 (only two defendents were convicted against four in the first trial) may revive criticism of the court although some human rights and Coptic sources caution against speculation that the court has been biased in favour of the defendents. It is a civil not a military or emergency court and it is quite possible that the prosecutor general will again bring the decision to the attention of the Court of Cassation after the presiding judge publishes the reasons for its decision.

Although the Commission was not present in court the Commission Delegation and Member State embassies in Cairo have closely followed this case and will continue to do so. And representations will be made through the normal channels if it is considered appropriate.

---

(1)  See page 9.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Paul Emmanuel PELHAM.

No. 279P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Paul Emmanuel Pelham, Pro Se.

Thomas H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of August 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
Exhibit 99.20

CONSENT OF HUGO M. MIRANDA

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the 40-F) of Goldcorp
Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.

I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report(s) and to the references, as applicable, to
my name in connection with (including, as an expert or qualified person) the following report(s) and documents:



|1. | The technical report dated March 27, 2014, entitled Technical Report on the Pueblo Viejo Project, Sanchez Ramirez Province, Dominican Republic (the Pueblo Viejo Report); and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Pueblo Viejo Report and the Pueblo Viejo Project, and the properties described therein.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information contained in the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF into Registration
Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-174376, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8 of the Company.

Date: March
31, 2014



/s/ Hugo M. MirandaName: Hugo M. Miranda, MBA, P.C.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 769 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 769

 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure 
  that participants in the Troops to Teachers program may teach at a 
                       range of eligible schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2007

 Mr. Salazar (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Allard) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure 
  that participants in the Troops to Teachers program may teach at a 
                       range of eligible schools.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Troops to Teachers Improvement Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER TROOPS 
              TO TEACHERS PROGRAM.

    Section 2304 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 6674) is amended in subsection (a)(1)(B) by striking ``for 
not less than 3 school years'' and all that follows through the period 
at the end and inserting the following: ``for not less than 3 school 
years, to begin the school year after obtaining that certification or 
licensing, with a high-need local educational agency or public charter 
school, as such terms are defined in section 2101 or, if there is no 
high-need local educational agency or public charter school for which 
the member is qualified to teach within a 50-mile radius of the 
member's residence, then under circumstances covered by section 
2302(b)(2).''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Oakland McCULLOCH.

No. COA15-290.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18409]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

Date and Time: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: This Meeting Will Be Closed To The Public.

Items To Be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings 
or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters 
affecting a particular employee.
    (Note: The Starting Time For The Open Meeting On September 22, 2005 
Has Been Changed To 2 p.m.)

Date and Time: Thursday, September 22, 2005, at 2 p.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

Status: This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public.

Items To Be Discussed: Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Advisory Opinion 2005-11: Friends of Duke Cunningham, by Kenneth 
Batson, Treasurer.
    Advisory Opinion 2005-12: Representative Chaka Fattah, by counsel, 
Neil Reiff. Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Definitions of 
``Solicit'' and ``Direct.'' (11 CFR 300.2(m) and (n)).
    Routine Administrative Matters.

Person To Contact For Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-18409 Filed 9-13-05; 10:30 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
**Exhibit
32.1**
 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 IGIA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB
for the period ending February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Avi Sivan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities and 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.
 
 
 
 Date:
            June 17, 2005
    By:*/s/*Avi
      SivanAvi
      SivanChief
      Executive Officer
 ****
# CE2004088EN.01041901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/419 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/419

---

(2004/C 88 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   ‘Enlargement Weekly’ only in English

Subject:

The Commission web site quite correctly pays attention to the enlargement process that the European Union is currently undergoing. A separate home page is even devoted to enlargement, which includes a feature entitled ‘Enlargement Weekly’. In its own words, the newsletter provides ‘an overview of where European enlargement has got to, who's doing what in the EU, in the institutions and the candidate countries, and how the main challenges are being met’.

Unlike the remainder of the web site which, quite correctly, appears in all the official languages of the European Union, ‘Enlargement Weekly’ is, however, available only in English.

What are the grounds for this linguistic restriction?

Is the Commission planning to have the newsletter translated into all the official languages? If so, when will the relevant texts be available in the other official languages of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

(15 September 2003)

Increasing the multi-lingual nature of the Enlargement website has been a priority since its relaunch in 2002. The first priority was to provide in all Community languages the main pages, main texts, and those parts of the website, which are not subject to continuous revision, as is the case in much of the enlargement process. This is an ongoing process. The Enlargement Weekly Newsletter to which the Honourable Member refers is not an official document of the Commission, but an element of the Communication Strategy on enlargement that the Commission makes publicly available as it is specified in the text at the bottom of the web page. It is produced every week on Monday in order to give a continuous and rapidly available account of the main developments in the enlargement process. A summary of the main items is e-mailed the following day to approximately 20 000 persons around the world who are subscribed to it. Therefore, it requires a rapid production, which would inevitably be delayed and more expensive if more than one language version were required. It is only because of these reasons that the production in only one language is used in this specific case.

There are no plans to produce any other linguistic versions of the newsletter.

---
NO. 07-08-0174-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	AUGUST 19, 2008

	______________________________

	JAY GID BRYAN, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. B 14776-0301; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant Jay Gid Bryan has filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of endangering a child,1 revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to two years confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The reporter’s record and clerk’s record have been filed.  Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on June 20, 2008, but has not yet been filed.  Further, no motion for extension of time has been filed. 

	 By letter dated July 3, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s retained attorney of the failure and also explained that if no response was received by July 14, 2008, the appeal would be abated pursuant to Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  On July 8, 2008, we received a document entitled “Notice of Nonrepresentation” in which counsel states he represented appellant at a motion to proceed but was never retained to represent him on appeal.   Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rules 38.8(b)(2) and (3).  On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine the following:

	1.  Whether appellant truly desires to prosecute the appeal; and

	2.  Whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel.

	Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and is indigent, and that counsel should be appointed,  the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in an order.  If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and any necessary orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings, conclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  A supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing, if any, shall also be included in the appellate record.  Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, with the Clerk of this Court by September 19, 2008.

	It is so ordered. 

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 2556

_____________________________
A LEXANDER M URRAY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

.

March 8, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B ILBREY , N ORDBY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Michael Jerome Titus
, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# CE2004088EN.01036302.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/363

---

(2004/C 88 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Imports of preserved mandarin segments from China

Subject:

On 5 June 2002, because of massive imports of preserved mandarin segments from the People's Republic of China, Spain urgently requested application of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1), in particular Article 22 thereof concerning the safeguard clause in the event of the Community market being disturbed by imports.

1

If the Commission considered its application dubious, because of China's entry into the WTO or for some other reason, can it say:

| — | why it did not apply the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) establishing common rules for imports, after receiving all the relevant reports from the Spanish Government, the latest in March 2003: |
| --- | --- |

—

why it did not apply the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) establishing common rules for imports, after receiving all the relevant reports from the Spanish Government, the latest in March 2003:

2

| — | why it did not apply Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 (3) on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it did not apply Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 (3) on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China?

3

The Community market in mandarin segments, originating almost exclusively in Spain, is being irreversibly damaged and seriously disturbed. When does the Commission envisage adopting measures to protect its own market?

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53.

2

(3)  OJ L 65, 8.3.2003, p. 1.

3

---
# C_2023314EN.01000401.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v LC

(Case C-339/23, Horyzont)

(2023/C 314/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty

Defendant: LC

Question referred

Must Article 8 of Directive 2008/48/EC of 28 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the creditor to assess the creditworthiness of the consumer (borrower), as set out therein, is equivalent to the other obligations laid down in that directive (in particular the obligations to provide information set out in Articles 10 et seq.), and therefore the penalties referred to in Article 23 of the directive cannot be different, that is to say, cannot provide for different legal consequences for infringement of each of those obligations separately?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---
STATE v. David Matthew LOWE.

No. 278P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 11, 2015.

Charlene Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Lowe, David Matthew.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of August 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of August 2015."