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

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 29, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TRACY SPENCER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

KEVIN MILYARD, and THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-1172

(D.C. No. 06-cv-01892)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Tracy Spencer requests a certificate of appealability

(“COA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that would enable him to appeal the district

court’s decision denying him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his

conviction for first-degree murder. 

Spencer pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder and one count of

second-degree murder for the deaths of two women, in exchange for withdrawal
- 2 -

of the death penalty. Spencer was sentenced to life imprisonment on the firstdegree murder count and twenty-four years in prison on the second-degree murder

count, the sentences to be served consecutively. In this action, Spencer only

seeks habeas relief from the sentence of life imprisonment.

In his habeas petition, Spencer raises two issues with respect to his

conviction: (1) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2)

whether the loss or destruction of trial counsel’s case file, after his trial and

appeal, violated his due process rights.

Spencer will be entitled to a COA if he can make “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can make such a

showing by establishing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations omitted).

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, as adopted by the district court, we conclude that Spencer has

failed to make an adequate showing of the denial of a constitutional right in this

case. We, therefore, DENY Spencer’s motion for a COA and DISMISS this 
- 3 -

appeal. Additionally, Spencer’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 22, 2008

Mr. Douglas W. Alexander

Alexander Dubose Jones & Townsend LLP

515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. John Thomas Wilson IV

Kelly Hart & Hallman, P.C.

201 Main Street, Suite 2500

Fort Worth, TX 76102

RE:Case Number:  08-0074

Court of Appeals Number:  03-05-00034-CV

Trial Court Number:  8027

Style:THOMAS O. BENNETT, JR., AND JAMES B. BONHAM CORPORATION

v.

RANDY REYNOLDS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced cause.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 08-0074Page 1**
# CE2004078EN.01027501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/275 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/275

---

(2004/C 78 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/03

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Transportation of horses from Romania to Italy

Subject:

Would the Commission explain why in the light of its own findings of violations of the law and great cruelty to the animals involved in the transportation of horses from Romania to Italy it does not suspend this trade until certain legal requirements are met?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

(22 December 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the findings of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) missions carried out in Romania in November 2002 and June 2003 (1) on the operation of controls on the export of live horses to the Union.

1

In the light of these findings, the Commission took urgent contact with the Romanian authorities to agree the corrective actions required to remedy the deficiencies identified. On two occasions in 2003, the Deputy Director- General for Health and Consumer Protection met a representative of the Mission of Romania to the Union. At each meeting, the question of Romanian horses exported to the Union was raised.

It should be noted that the Commission has presently no legal basis to intervene in the welfare conditions in which horses are kept and transported in Romania. However, the Commission is committed to take all possible actions in this regard to remedy the most critical situations reported.

Concerning the veterinary certification of horses exported to the Union, a mission to Romania took place from 6 to 10 October 2003. The preliminary findings of this mission indicate that progress is under way as regards the identification of horses infected by Equine Infectious Anaemia and that the Romanian authorities are continuing to make real efforts to correct the deficiencies identified.

The number of FVO missions to Romania performed in relation to animal health issues indicates the degree to which the Commission is committed to rapidly improve the current situation.

The Commission will continue to collaborate closely with the Romanian authorities to ensure that any remaining deficiencies are addressed and that measures are taken to avoid a recurrence of such problems. The need for further action, such as evoked by the Honourable Member, will be considered in the light of progress achieved by the Romanian authorities.

---

(1)  Inspection reports are registered under DG (SANCO)/8675/2002 and DG(SANCO)9226/2003.

1

---
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect            of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432                     

# of 13 March 2015

# amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial                        integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining                              or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(1).

(2)On 8 September 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/658/CFSP(2), thereby renewing those measures for a further six months.

(3)On 29 January 2015, the Foreign Affairs Council agreed that the measures should be renewed. The Council reviewed the individual                              designations. The entries for fifty persons should be amended and the entry for one deceased person should be deleted.

(4)Decision 2014/145/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Decision 2014/145/CFSP is amended as follows:

in Article 6, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 15 September 2015.’;                           

the Annex is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 March 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

A. Matīss                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The entry set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning the person listed below is deleted:

Ludmila Ivanovna Shvetsova.

The entries set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning the persons listed below are replaced by the following                              entries:                           

1

Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening                              the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16).                           

2

OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 47.
STATE v. Vincent GREGORY.

No. 211P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 25, 2015.

Vincent Gregory, Bunn, for Gregory, Vincent.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Samuel B. Currin, III, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of income for the
period ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,904,000
<SECURITIES>                                   331,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 28,401,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,722,000
<PP&E>                                     486,177,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             601,991,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      301,454,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       260,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 289,083,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               601,991,000
<SALES>                                     82,647,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            82,647,000
<CGS>                                       13,719,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,080,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,326,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,265,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (494,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (772,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (772,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.3)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.3)



</TABLE>
PARAMOUNT RX, INC. v. Robert E. DUGGAN and Agelity, Inc.

No. 376A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 21, 2015.

Christopher Jones, Raleigh, for Paramount Rx, Inc.

Leslie C. Packer, Raleigh, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

James Michael Weiss, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of December 2015 by Plaintiff to Stay the Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of December 2015."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 542 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 246
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 542

                          [Report No. 110-113]

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
  Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2007

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                             June 28, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Bingaman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
  Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Bureau of Reclamation, may conduct feasibility studies on projects that 
address water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River 
systems in the State of Idaho, and are considered appropriate for 
further study by the Bureau of Reclamation Boise Payette water storage 
assessment report issued during 2006.
    (b) Bureau of Reclamation.--A study conducted under this section 
shall comply with Bureau of Reclamation policy standards and guidelines 
for studies.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out this section 
$3,000,000.
    (d) Termination of Effectiveness.--The authority provided by this 
section terminates on the date that is 10 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                                       Calendar No. 246

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 542

                          [Report No. 110-113]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
  Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 28, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 676 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 676

     To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American 
   Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-
 American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the 
                       Inter-American Foundation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2007

 Mr. Biden (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American 
   Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-
 American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the 
                       Inter-American Foundation.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO APPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR ALTERNATE 
              EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 
              TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN 
              FOUNDATION.

    The third sentence of section 401(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1969 (22 U.S.C. 290f(g)) is amended to read as follows: ``Three 
members of the Board shall be appointed from among the following: 
officers or employees of agencies of the United States concerned with 
inter-American affairs, the United States Executive Director of the 
Inter-American Development Bank, or the Alternate Executive Director of 
the Inter-American Development Bank.''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 December 9, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40731 Conference Calendar

LARRY NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TRACI KENNER; GREGG MARCHESSAULT, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tyler Division; JAMES A. HERSLEY, Special Agent, FBI, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:03-CV-132

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Nichols appeals the denial of his mandamus petition, in which he sought an order compelling U.S. Attorney Matthew Orwig to investigate the alleged misconduct of the defendants relative to the prosecution of Alan Petty. He argues that his due process rights were violated when the magistrate judge issued his recommendation prior to the expiration of the period afforded Nichols to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss and,No. 03-40731 -2- additionally, that the district court purposely misconstrued the relief he sought in order to favor the defendants. Nichols is correct that the magistrate judge issued his recommendation prior to the expiration of the 15-day period afforded Nichols to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, see E.D. T EX . R. CV-7(e); nevertheless, the district court afforded Nichols’s opposition de novo review before judgment was rendered, and we therefore hold his due process argument meritless. Cf. McGill v. Goff , 17 F.3d 729, 731 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds , Kansa Reinsurance Co. v. Congressional Mortgage Corp. of Texas , 20 F.3d 1362, 1373-74 (5th Cir. 1994). We further hold that the district court’s liberal construction of Nichols’s pro se petition as requesting an order compelling the defendants to undertake criminal prosecutions was reasonable. See, e.g., Castro Romero v. Becken , 256 F.3d 349, 354 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001) . Moreover, Nichols has failed to brief the issue that served as the basis for the district court’s decision, i.e ., that he lacked standing to bring the instant mandamus petition. He has therefore waived its review and, consequently, has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 99.1





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 Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David P. Anastasi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)).





(2)  To the best of my knowledge, the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.








/S/    DAVID P. ANASTASI








David P. Anastasi


President and Chief Executive Officer


August 19, 2002
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

May 12, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-10784

THOMAS JOE MILLER-EL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of this Court

entered on August 7, 2001, and published at 261 F.3d 445, and has

remanded this case to our Court “for further proceedings consistent

with the Supreme Court’s opinion” decided February 25, 2003 in No.

01-7662.

For the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its opinion, we

now issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA)on Petitioner’s jury1 Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

2 selection claim premised on Batson 1

. Accordingly, as suggested by

the Supreme Court, the issue now before our Court is whether

“Petitioner [has] demonstrate[d] that the state trial cour t ’s

findings of the absence of purposeful discrimination was incorrect

by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. §2254 (e)(1) and that

the corresponding factual determination was “‘objectively

unreasonable’ in light of the record before the court,” when viewed

in the light of (1) ‘Petitioner’s historical evidence of racial

discrimination by the district attorney’s office’, (2) the

‘substantial evidence Petitioner put forth in support of his prima

facia case’, (3) the decisions of both the prosecution and the

defense to call for a jury shuffle and (4) the evidence proffered

by the defense as to disparate questioning of prospective jurors by

the prosecution.” We direct the parties to su bmit supplemental

briefs focusing specifically on these issues with full and complete

record citations as to relevant evidence and testimony. We

instruct the clerk of this court to set a briefing schedule so that

briefing will be complete within 45 days.