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

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a conference call of the Illinois Advisory Committee will convene at 11 a.m. and adjourn at 12 p.m., Wednesday, September 28, 2005. The purpose of the conference call is to approve the agenda for the briefing, “Health Disparities in Minority Communities in Chicago.”

This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-473-8694, contact name: James Scales. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and contact name.

                    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Constance M. Davis, Regional Director of the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at (312) 353-8311, (TDD 312-353-8362), by                     *4 p.m.*                     on                     *Tuesday, September 27, 2005.*

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, September 7, 2005.

Ivy L. Davis,

Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 05-18134 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20403

Summary Calendar

 

JOHNNIE MAE JONES; HARVELLA JONES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

SHEARN SMITH, (State District Court No. 61st);

DAVID WEST, (State District Court No. 269th),

JEFFREY H. EWALT, Esq.; DAVID B. DICKINSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-4368

- - - - - - - - - -

May 4, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnnie and Harvella Jones (the “Joneses”) request

permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the

district court’s dismissal of their civil rights lawsuit against

the defendants. The Joneses contend that the district court did

not lack subject-matter jurisdiction to consider their 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claims.
No. 97-20403

- 2 -

The Joneses’ § 1983 claims are “inextricably intertwined”

with a state judgment, and the district court was “in essence

being called upon to review the state-court decision.” See

United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of

state court determinations. District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923).

The Joneses have failed to show that they will present a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d

562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, permission to proceed IFP

is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

We caution the Joneses that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by them will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, the Joneses are further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous. 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DEAN STAUBIN MILLER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 4289

[ December 21, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Edward L. Artau , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2016CA012297XXXXMB

.

Dean S. Miller, South Bay, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James Carney,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKL IN

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2008272EN.01002601.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2008 — Adomex International v Commission

(Case T-315/05) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Aid granted by the Netherlands authorities in the floriculture sector - Decision not to raise objections - Not individually concerned - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 272/49)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Adomex International BV (Aalsmeer, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 592 final of 16 March 2005 not to raise objections with regard to aid N 372/2003 concerning the floriculture sector, notified by the Netherlands authorities

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Adomex International BV is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Adomex International BV is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01024001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/240

---

(2004/C 78 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Search at the ‘Il Giornale’ head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy

Subject:

On Friday 17 October 2003, the head office of the leading Italian daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’, which is investigating the purchase of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by order of the Court of Perugia. At the end of this search, which was carried out by the police and lasted a good 13 hours, a large quantity of material belonging to the journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It appears that the only crime he is alleged to have committed is that of defaming a Rome judge in the press.

Does the Commission not consider the decisions taken to represent a blatant violation of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression?

Does it not feel that these decisions violate the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers of the EU to the Member States on 8 March 2003, according to which interception, surveillance, searches and confiscation should not be used to circumvent the right of journalists not to reveal their sources?

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia to run contrary to the renowned Goodwin ruling handed down by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which gave legal substance to journalists' right to the professional secret.

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia also to run contrary to ruling No 33400/96 of the Strasbourg court, which deems searches conducted with the intention of discovering journalists' sources to be an outright violation of the freedom of expression?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

(2 December 2003)

The search carried out at the head office of ‘Il Giornale’ by order of the Perugia public prosecutor's office is the sole responsibility of the national authorities responsible for organising the justice system in Italy. Given that Community law is not at issue here, the Commission takes the view that it is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been infringed may take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.

---
ACCEPTED12-14-00039-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS

8/5/2015 9:21:04 AMCATHY LUSK

CLERK

            FILED IN12th COURT OF APPEALS        TYLER, TEXAS  8/5/2015 9:21:04 AM        CATHY S. LUSK                Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136277 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

THOMAS J. BURKE, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136277 

 COA: 275828 

Macomb CC: 2006-003942-CZ 

BURKE RENTAL SERVICES, INC.,

THE BURKE COMPANY, L.L.C., 

JOHN C. BURKE, MICHAEL C. BURKE, and 

KEVIN BURKE,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2008 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
1407.

#### LONG *v.*THE STATE.

The evidence in behalf of the State was wholly circumstantial, and, not’. being inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence, the conviction of the defendant was unauthorized.

Accusation of adultery and fornication, from city court of Griffin — Judge Patterson. September 12, 1908.

Argued October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*Thomas W. Thurman,*for plaintiff in error.

*William H. Beclc, solicitor,*contra.

Russell, J.

The only evidence introduced against the defendant in the court below, on his trial for adultery and fornication, was proof that he was found in the same room with an unmarried woman at about nine o’clock at night, that the lamp in the room was turned low, and that neither of them had on shoes. It was also in evidence that an inside door, connecting with an adjoining room, as well as the outside door, was closed. There were two beds in the room, but the cover had not been turned down on either,, though one bed, as testified to by the policeman, appeared somewhat rumpled, and the pillow was indented and felt warm. The-woman who was alleged to have participated in the. adultery and fornication was introduced as a witness, and testified, that neither-on the occasion in question nor at any other time had the defendant ever had carnal knowledge of her person. There is no evidence that she was of unsavory reputation.

We think that the court erred in not granting a new trial, for the reason that the evidence is insufficient to remove every other-reasonable supposition than that of the defendant’s guilt. The circumstances are such as to raise, perhaps, a violent suspicion; but this is all. Prom the proved facts the inference is as likely that-the parties were about to commit the offense alleged in the accusation, and were prevented by the arrival of the two policemen, as that the act had already been consummated. The fact that the-parties were in a room adjoining another room, and connected-with it by a door, in which were three other persons, who knew of the-*177presence of the defendant and the woman in question, in the absence of proof of bad character on her part would not be sufficient to raise a presumption inconsistent with innocence, and that the sole purpose of his presence with her was to commit the act of adultery and fornication. We recognize the well-settled rule that illicit intercourse may be inferred from the presence of a man at a house of ill fame, or from his exclusive presence in a closed room with a woman of an established reputation for lewdness. The evidence in this case, however, does not show that the house in question bore an evil reputation, or that the female bore other than a good reputation. Our decision is controlled by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of *Weems v. State, 84 Ga.*461 (11 S. E. 501), and our ruling in *Murray*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*620 (58 S. E. 1060). *Judgment reversed.*

Powell, J.,

dissenting. That rumpled bed and warm pillow, to my mind, speak more strongly of consummation experienced than of mere preparation thwarted.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Gregorio Colon MOLINA, Defendant.

No. COA15-695.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# CE2004070EN.01003102.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/31

---

(2004/C 70 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject:   Motorola Computer Group and Wordsworth Technologies Ltd and price fixing

Subject:

I have received a letter regarding Motorola UK who have refused to accept purchase orders from Wordsworth Technology Ltd. They believe that they are being cut out because they have identified a price fixing scam run by the Motorola Computer Group. They have tried to source parts from Germany, but feel they were prevented from doing so by Motorola, and their current source in Hong Kong is under the same threat.

It is my understanding that Wordsworth Technologies had made a complaint to the European Commission in January 1999 regarding Motorola's price fixing, squeezing Wordsworth out of the market.

Has there been any progress in investigating this complaint and if so what has the outcome been?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

(21 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission opened an investigation into the distribution arrangements of Motorola Computer Group (a business division of Motorola Inc) for certain of its products with a view to ascertaining whether these arrangements were in accordance with Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This investigation was opened after the Commission had received a complaint by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd in January 1999.

The Commission has been investigating this complaint by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd actively. It has sent a very significant number of formal requests for information to Motorola Computer Group, its distributors and customers as well as Wordsworth Technologies Ltd, in order to be in a position to analyse all facts in their proper economic and legal context. It has also held various meetings with the parties in this case, including Wordsworth Technologies Ltd.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that Motorola Computer Group has introduced various modifications to its distribution arrangements as a direct result of the Commission's investigations in this case.

The Commission is currently elaborating its final analysis of all the issues that were raised by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd. This analysis will not only take account of the issues that Wordsworth Technologies Ltd raised in its initial complaint but also of those raised in later correspondence, including those the Honourable Member is referring to, which were actually only brought to the Commission's attention late in 2002.

The Commission is confident that it can inform Wordsworth Technologies Ltd in the near future about the Commission's position in this case. Wordsworth Technologies Ltd will then be given an opportunity to comment upon this position.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Dustin HAMILTON, Defendant.

No. COA15-256.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; and remanded.
# Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1182Show full title

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1182 of 17 July 2015 approving the adjustment programme of Greece

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1182                     

# of 17 July 2015

# approving the adjustment programme of Greece

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening                           of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties                           with respect to their financial stability(1), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 sets rules for the approval of a macro-economic adjustment programme for a Member State in receipt                              of financial assistance, including from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM). These rules need to be consistent                              with the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010(2) establishing the EFSM.

(2)Greece has been granted financial assistance from the EFSM by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1181(3) on granting short-term Union financial assistance to Greece.

(3)For reasons of consistency, the approval of the macroeconomic adjustment programme for Greece under Regulation (EU) No 472/2013                              should be done by reference to the relevant provisions of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1181,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The measures specified in Article 3(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1181 to be taken by Greece as part of its adjustment                     programme are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall take effect upon the date of its notification.

# Article 3U.K.

This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.

# Article 4U.K.

This Decision shall be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Brussels, 17 July 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

J. Asselborn                            

1

OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ L 118, 12.5.2010, p. 1).                           

3

See page 15 of this Official Journal.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELI WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (7:96-cr-00104-GRA-1)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eli Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Kevin Frank McDonald,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eli Wright appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. United States v. Wright, No. 7:96-cr-00104-

GRA-1 (D.S.C. May 15, 2008). We further deny Wright’s motion for

appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED