alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2468

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Gregory A. Fields, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2008

Filed: October 9, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 revoked Gregory Fields’s supervised release and sentenced

him to 8 months in prison after finding that Fields had used a controlled substance in

violation of his release conditions. The court’s finding was based on test results from

a sweat patch showing the presence of cocaine and/or cocaine metabolite. On appeal,

Fields argues that the district court erred, because the court did not consider his efforts

at drug counseling and his employment, and failed to give adequate weight to his

argument that the sweat patch could have been contaminated. 
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Fields had

violated his release conditions, and did not abuse its discretion in revoking his

supervised release. It is undisputed that the sweat patch tested positive, and defense

counsel did not present evidence as to how the patch might have been contaminated.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (permitting revocation of supervised release if court finds

by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release);

United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (revocation based on

finding of violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court’s finding of

violation is reviewed for clear error); see also United States v. Meyer, 483 F.3d 865,

869 (8th Cir. 2007) (concluding that sweat patch results are generally reliable method

of determining probation violation, although there may be instances where offenders

offer compelling reasons to believe positive test results from sweat patches are

erroneous; district court should make such determination on case-by-case basis).

We also conclude that the 8-month revocation sentence is not unreasonable as

the record shows that the district court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

in determining the sentence. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in

accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); United States v.

Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required is evidence that

court considered relevant matters, not that court made specific findings on each

§ 3553(a) factor).

Accordingly, we allow counsel to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
State of North Carolina v. Christopher Roger Cole, Jr.

No. 325P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

*330Brendan O'Donnell, Attorney at Law, for Cole, Christopher Roger (Jr.).

Jennifer Harjo, Attorney at Law, Wilmington.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of September 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 8th of December 2016."
# C_2008022EN.01002602.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/26

---

Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-492/07)

(2008/C 22/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Nijenhuis and K. Moyzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure the proper incorporation into national law of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and in particular Article 2(k) with reference to the definition of a subscriber, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure the proper incorporation into national law of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and in particular Article 2(k) with reference to the definition of a subscriber, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 April 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.

1

---
STATE v. Joseph M. ROMANO

199PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 19, 2016

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Ramano, Joseph M.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of September 2016 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of September 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 4th day of October 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2010051EN.01003101.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2010 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)

(Case T-460/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LIFE BLOG - Earlier national word mark LIFE - 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) - Partial refusal to register)

2010/C 51/59

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nokia Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Medion AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: P.-M. Weisse, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 2 October 2007 (Case R 141/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Medion AG and Nokia Oyj

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nokia Oyj to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nokia Oyj to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. GREGORY DALE HAYES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-30159 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00133-RRB-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 30, 2012 ** Anchorage, Alaska Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Gregory Hayes appeals from his guilty pl ea convictions for conspiring to make false statements in connection with the acqui sition of firearms and two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, which re sulted in a combined fifteen-year prison 

# FILED
SEP 05 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 In his notice of appeal, Hayes indicat ed he was appealing his sentence only, but in his briefs challenges only his c onvictions. Because the government was able to fully brief its responses to Hayes’ s conviction appeal arguments, it was not prejudiced by the deficient notice of appeal, and we may consider the merits of the claim. See United States v. Yee Soon Shin , 953 F.2d 559, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 sentence—five years for conspiracy consecutiv e to concurrent ten-year terms for the felon-in-possession counts. He argues that the district court did not properly advise him of his maximum possible sentence before he pled guilty to the three counts. Because Hayes did not bring the claimed defect to the district court’s attention, his conviction may be reversed only if the district court committed plain error. United States v. Pena , 314 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55 (2002)). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1 and we affirm. Hayes concedes government counsel co rrectly stated during the plea colloquy that the maximum sentence Haye s could receive for conspiracy was five years and for each of his firearms possession counts was te n years. He focuses his appeal on the district court’s subsequent statements thatfifteen years was “the worst [Hayes] could do” if subject to sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Because those statements (1) did not imply, as Hayes argue s, that the sentences for the three counts would run concurrently whether or not the Ac t applied, and (2) even if misleading, did not affect Hayes’s substantial rights gi ven that his actual sentence did not exceed3 fifteen years, see United States v. Morales-Robles , 309 F.3d 609, 610-11 (9th Cir. 2002), there was no plain error. AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

d0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

137948 

MICHAEL T. DOE and PATSY R. DOE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 137948 

 COA: 278763 

Washtenaw CC: 02-000141-NH 

JOHN HENKE, M.D. and ANN ARBOR 

ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

TRINITY HEALTH, d/b/a ST. JOSEPH 

MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a 

ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136234 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136234 

 COA: 282915 

Wayne CC: 03-002381

BRYANT KEITH WILEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT former appellate counsel, Kevin M. 

Landau, to file a supplemental brief addressing the reason(s) for his failure to file the 

defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals within the 

deadlines set forth in MCR 7.205(F)(4), which led to administrative dismissal of the 

application on jurisdictional grounds. Counsel shall file the supplemental brief within 28 

days of the date of this order. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending. 

s0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-Q/A of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2002 and as amended on March 31, 2003 and the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Walt Hilger, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                         /s/Walt Hilger
                                         ---------------------------------
Dated: May 19, 2003                      Walt Hilger

                                         Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010024EN.01007301.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/73

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Hau v Parliament

(Case F-125/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion exercise - Non-inclusion on the list of promoted officials - Comparative examination of the merits - Relevant threshold - Failure to take into account the fact that the official concerned was included in the reserve)

2010/C 24/133

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Armin Hau (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to not promote the applicant to grade B*7 for the 2006 promotion exercise and second, an application for the Appointing Authority to produce the documents concerning the comparative examination of the merits for that promotion.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament, published on 21 November 2006, to not include Mr Hau on the list of officials promoted from grade B*6 to grade B*7 for the 2006 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament, published on 21 November 2006, to not include Mr Hau on the list of officials promoted from grade B*6 to grade B*7 for the 2006 promotion exercise;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008, p. 37.

1

---
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 15, 2016.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of January 2016 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of January 2016."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 19th day of February 2016 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
# C_2007140EN.01004701.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/47

---

Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Prieto v Parliament

(Case F-42/07)

(2007/C 140/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Prieto (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the European Parliament's decision of 9 June 2006 to appoint the applicant as a probationary official in step 3 of Grade AST 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament's decision of 9 June 2006 to appoint the applicant as a probationary official in step 3 of Grade AST 2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a successful candidate in internal competition C/348 for Grades C5-4, was a member of the Commission's temporary staff in Grade AST 3 (formerly Grade C4) when he was appointed as a probationary official in Grade AST 2.

In support of his action, the applicant claims, first, that the decision to appoint him as an official in a grade and step lower than that which was his when he was a member of the temporary staff infringes Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’).

The applicant also pleads breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, on the ground that only the successful candidates in the competition in question who were previously, as members of the temporary staff, in category D were able to retain their former more advantageous grade and step when they were appointed as officials.

The applicant claims, finally, that the contested decision also infringes the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, proper administration and of sound management.

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3552

___________________________

William Simpson Edwards

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Stephen E. Sparks

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

John Boilingcamp

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Nancy Roth; John Hawk; Rebecca Bowker; Dave DeGrange; Harbans Deol;

Coleen Kascel; Deb Nichols; Nick Ludwick; William Sperflage; Sheryl Dahm;

John Baldwin

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: May 1, 2015

Filed: May 5, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Inmate William Simpson Edwards appeals the district court’s adverse grant

1

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We agree with the district

court’s well-reasoned determination that the summary judgment record did not reveal

any genuine issues of material fact. See Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771 (8th

Cir. 2015) (de novo review). Because we find no basis for reversal, and Edwards

offers none, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Helen C. Adams, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
United Community Bank v. Wolfe, et al.

289PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 9, 2016

*801Donald H. Barton, Attorney at Law, Brevard, for Wolfe, Thomas L., et al.

Esther E. Manheimer, Attorney at Law, Robert Ashley Mays, Attorney at Law, Mark A. Pinkston, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for United Community Bank (Georgia).

Clint S. Morse, Attorney at Law, Robert A. Singer, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for North Carolina Bankers Association

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of September 20 16 by NC Bankers Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of September 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
# C_2010148EN.01002402.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Oxley Threads v Commission

(Case T-448/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in thread for automotive customers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2010/C 148/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oxley Threads Ltd (Ashton-Under-Lyne, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Peretz, Barrister, M. Rees and K. Vernon, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005 and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Oxley Threads Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Oxley Threads Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

1

---