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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

PAUL A. LEE, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. 

Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:94-cr-00096-FPS-JES-1) 

Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 10, 2008 

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Paul A. Lee appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion for discovery of certain electronically intercepted 

communications. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Lee, No. 5:94-cr-00096-

FPS-JES-1 (N.D. W. Va. June 2, 2008). 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
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 – Royal Appliance International v OHIM – BSH
Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)**

**(Case T-446/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark Centrixx – Earlier national word mark sensixx – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-33, 59-64)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 572/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH and Royal Appliance International GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Royal Appliance International GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ‘Centrixx’ for goods in Class 7 – Application No 3016227 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | German word mark ‘sensixx’ for goods in Class 7 – Registration No 30244090 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the application for registration of the mark |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Royal Appliance International GmbH to pay the costs. |
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Commission v Germany**

**(Case C‐395/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, with corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
State of North Carolina v. Freddie Lee Thompson

No. COA16-435

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,487,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,018,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,030,474
<PP&E>                                      97,574,480
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,131,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,275,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,567,352
<BONDS>                                     58,894,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,400
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,710,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                92,275,707
<SALES>                                     37,832,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,832,388
<CGS>                                       22,929,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,929,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,798,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,545,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,586,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,215,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,371,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,371,247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70


</TABLE>
State v. Derrick D. Boger

158P06-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Derrick D. Boger, For Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of April 2016 by Defendant to Appeal An Consolidation of Sentences:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. N.C. Department of Revenue

307PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 6, 2017

Peggy S. Vincent, Assistant Attorney General, Tenisha S. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, *803Asheville, for North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Thomas D. Myrick, Attorney at Law, Neil T. Bloomfield, Attorney at Law, Kara N. Bitar, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of December 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of January 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 7th day of February 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1918]



[[Page 5509]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP) Sponsor, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement 
Funds for Fiscal Year 2005

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces May 1, 
2005, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA that 
it will use its fiscal year 2005 entitlement funds to accomplish 
projects identified in the Airports Capital Improvement Plan that was 
formulated in the spring of 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Molar, Manager, Airports 
Financial Assistance Division, Office of Airport Planning and 
Programming, APP-500, on (202) 267-3831.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 47105(f) of title 49, United States 
Code, provides that the sponsor of each airport to which funds are 
apportioned shall notify the Secretary by such time and in a form as 
prescribed by the Secretary, of the sponsor's intent to apply for the 
funds apportioned to it (entitlements). This notice applies only to 
those airports that have received such entitlements, except those 
nonprimary airports located in designated Block Grant States. 
Notification of the sponsor's intent to apply during fiscal year 2005 
for any of its available entitlement funds including those unused from 
prior years, shall be in the form of inclusion of projects for fiscal 
year 2005 in the Airports Capital Improvement Plan.
    This notice is promulgated to expedite and prioritize grants in the 
final quarter of the fiscal year. Absent an acceptable application by 
May 1, 2005, FAA will defer an airport's entitlement funds until the 
next fiscal year. Pursuant to the authority and limitations in section 
47117(f), FAA will issue discretionary grants in an aggregate amount 
not to exceed the aggregate amount of deferred entitlement funds. 
Airport sponsors may request unused entitlements after September 30, 
2005.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2005.
Barry L. Molar,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division.
[FR Doc. 05-1918 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
PHILIP MORRISS, BSc (Hons), MAusIMM



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON





To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Philip Morriss, BSc (Hons), MAusIMM, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

2.

Technical Report on the Tabakoto Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Reports)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 21st day of March, 2005.

signed

_______________________
Philip Morriss, BSc (Hons), MAusIMM

[Seal or Stamp]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4017 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4017

       To designate a peak located in Nevada as ``Mount Reagan''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2014

Mr. Heck of Nevada introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To designate a peak located in Nevada as ``Mount Reagan''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MOUNT REAGAN.

    (a) Designation.--The peak in the State of Nevada located at N 
36.18804 W 114.99815 shall be designated as ``Mount Reagan''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the peak referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to Mount Reagan.
                                 <all>
```
State of North Carolina v. Robert Timothy Walston, Sr.

No. 392PA13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 24, 2015

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Walston, Robert T. (Sr.).

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of May 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 24th of September 2015."
Maria VAUGHAN v. Lindsay MASHBURN, M.D. and Lakeshore Women's Specialists, PC

No. 42PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Patricia P. Shields, Attorney at Law, Josh Neighbors, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Travis E. Collum, Attorney at Law, Mooresville, Kevin M. Duffan, Attorney at Law, Joshua D. Neighbors, Attorney at Law, for Vaughan, Maria.

Harold Holmes, Attorney at Law, Bradley K. Overcash, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, John D. Branson, Attorney at Law, for Mashburn, Lindsay (M.D.), et al.

*5***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 10th of February 2017 by Defendants 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 16th of March 2017."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN BROCK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 39 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of July , 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
Denise Catanese Chafin v. Stephen Robert Chafin

No. 429P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

*220Barry Snyder, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Chafin, Stephen Robert.

Adam D. Furr, Attorney at Law, Jessica S. Bullock, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Chafin, Denise Catanese.

Adam Daniel Furr, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of November 2016 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 26th of January 2017."
STATE v. Angelo APPLEWHITE

366P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Angelo Applewhite, Pro per.

Ms. Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of October 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Thomas A. STOKES, III v. Catherine C. CRUMPTON (formerly Stokes)

No. 168A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Kieran J. Shanahan, Attorney at Law, Christopher S. Battles, Attorney at Law, John E. Branch, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Stokes, Thomas A. (III).

K. Edward Greene, Attorney at Law, Tobias S. Hampson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Crumpton, Catherine C. (formerly Stokes).

Robert A. Ponton, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiff on the 9th of May 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Edmunds, J. recused
NO. 07-08-0281-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 1, 2008

______________________________

BRANDON LEWIS, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 154 DISTRICT COURT OF LAMB COUNTY; TH

NO. 4270; HON. FELIX KLEIN, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Following a plea of true on a motion to revoke probation, appellant Brandon Lewis

was sentenced to two years confinement. He has filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s judgment and sentence. The clerk’s record was filed on July 17, 2008, and the

reporter’s record on July 7. The clerk’s record does not contain the trial court’s certification
 As of September 1, 2007, a defendant must sign and receive a copy of the 1

certification. Additionally, the new form provides certain admonishments to a defendant

not previously required. The proper form for the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s

Right of Appeal is contained in Appendix D to the 2008 Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2

of appellant’s right of appeal as required by Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

1

Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for

further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to

secure a proper Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Rule

25.2(d). Once properly completed and executed, the certification shall be included in a

supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court by October 31, 2008.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
**Exhibit
      32.2**







**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Kenneth W. Bean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
      ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc.





*By:/s/
      Kenneth W. Bean*


Kenneth
      W. Bean


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Accounting Officer)





November
      19, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7536

JAMES A. G. BUNCH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RANDALL LEE, Superintendent; NURSE EMERY, RN

Supervisor; DOCTOR CROCKRAN, Physician;

J. A. DOBBEN, Grievance Examiner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,

District Judge. (CA-03-654-5-FL)

Submitted: February 9, 2004 Decided: March 31, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. G. Bunch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James A. G. Bunch, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bunch v. Lee,

No. CA-03-654-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2003). 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
In the MATTER OF: E.P.H.

No. COA16-663

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
* 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. 08-50375

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODRIGO DEL REAL-HURTADO, also known as Luis Sanchez-Hernandez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-2552-1

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rodrigo Del Real-Hurtado

presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. CepedaRios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir. 2008), which held that the Supreme Court’s

decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006) did not overrule our precedent

holding that a second state conviction for simple possession of a controlled

substance qualifies as an aggravated felony that supports the imposition of an

eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The Government’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50375

2

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.