alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Earl THOMAS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 64693.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 5, 1994.

Earl Thomas, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Earl Thomas, appeals from the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief. Movant has previously filed a motion under Rule 29.15, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Following a consolidated appeal, this court denied his claims .and affirmed the judgments. *State v. Thomas,*830 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). Although movant now purports to seek relief under Rule 74.06, in fact his motion is a successive Rule 29.15 motion.

Rule 29.15(k) prohibits, successive Rule 29.15 motions. The trial court properly dismissed the motion.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed,
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1225]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Behavioral and Neurosciences.
    Date: January 25, 1996.
    Time: 3:30 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 5182, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Carl Banner, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1251.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the partial shutdown of the Federal Government and 
the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93-892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-1225 Filed 1-23-96; 10:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10687]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Receipt of Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of Existence as an 
Indian Tribe

    This is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 
209 DM 8.
    Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.9(a) (formerly 25 CFR 54.8(a)) notice is 
hereby given that the Apalachicola Band of Creek Indians, 104 West 4th 
Ave., Tallahassee, Florida 32303, has filed a petition for 
acknowledgment by the Secretary of the Interior that the group exists 
as an Indian tribe. The petition was received by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) on January 17, 1996, and was signed by members of the 
group's governing body.
    This is a notice of receipt of petition and does not constitute 
notice that the petition is under active consideration. Notice of 
active consideration will be sent by mail to the petitioner and other 
interested parties at the appropriate time.
    Under Section 83.9(a) (formerly 54.8(d)) of the Federal 
regulations, interested parties may submit factual and/or legal 
arguments in support of or in opposition to the group's petition. Any 
information submitted will be made available on the same basis as other 
information in the BIA's files. Such submissions will be provided to 
the petitioner upon receipt by the BIA. The petitioner will be provided 
an opportunity to respond to such submissions prior to a final 
determination regarding the petitioner's status.
    The petition may be examined, by appointment, in the Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and 
Research, Room 1362-MIB, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, 
Phone: (202) 208-3592.

    Dated: April 2, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-10687 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Crown Media Holdings, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-37588) on Form S-8 of Crown Holdings, Inc. of our reports
dated March 5, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2008, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Crown
Media Holdings, Inc.

KPMG LLP


Denver,
Colorado
March 5, 2009

---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES S. POPE, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent - Appellee. No. 13-36018 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00305-AA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 8, 2014 Seattle, Washington Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Charles Pope seeks federal habeas relief based on his claims of constitutional error arising from an Ore gon Board of Parole hearing conducted on August 3, 2011. 

# FILED
APR 23 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.In January 2014, the Board of Parole conducted a hearing, referred to as an exit interview, in anticipation of Pope’s scheduled July 21, 2014 release date. Following that hearing, the Board of Paro le deferred Pope’s release date 24 months to July 2016. A habeas petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy because the injury alleged cannot be redr essed by a favorable judicial decision. Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). If Pope were to prevail on the merits of his constitutional claims, the only relief this court could order would be that the Board of Parole conduct an exit intervie w hearing. That, Pope has already obtained. We therefore conclude that Pope’s claim is moot. Because the court does not have jurisdiction to hear Pope’s claim, the appeal is dismissed. DISMISSED.

2
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30900

Summary Calendar

 

NORMAN VAN COURT, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, New Orleans Local # 83;

AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-1670-K

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norman Van Court, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant

of the defendants’ FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his

suit for failure to state a claim. Van Court argues that the

district court erred in determining that his state-law claims were

preempted and that his suit was not timely filed. We conduct a

de novo review of a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
2

for failure to state a claim. Brown v. NationsBank Corp., 188 F.3d

579, 585 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court did not err in determining that

Van Court’s state-law claims were preempted by federal law.

Because Van Court’s claims arise from his allegation that the

defendants failed to diligently prosecute his grievance, these

claims are best construed as asserting that the defendants breached

the duty of fair representation (DFR) that they owed to Van Court.

See Landry v. The Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., 880 F.2d 846,

852 (5th Cir. 1989); see also McNair v. U.S. Postal Service, 768

F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 1985). A DFR claim arises under federal

law and preempts state-law claims. See Richardson v. United

Steelworkers of America, 864 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (5th Cir. 1989).

Further, the resolution of Van Court’s claims necessarily

involves an analysis of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

A state-law claim is preempted by federal law when, as here,

resolution of the claim is “inextricably intertwined with”

consideration of the terms of a CBA. See Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39

F.3d 611, 616-17 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, Van Court’s state-law

claims are preempted both because they arise from an alleged breach

of the DFR and because resolution of these claims involves analysis

of the CBA.

The district court also did not err in determining that

Van Court’s suit was untimely. See Smith v. Int’l Org. of Masters,

Mates, and Pilots, 296 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2002). The fact
3

that Van Court chose not to sue his employer does not preclude

application of the six-month statute of limitations announced in

DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 172, (1983),

to his suit. See Smith, 296 F.3d at 382.

Van Court has shown no error in the district court’s

judgment. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Daniel Marroquin RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas.

No. 0075-84.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

March 26, 1986.

Appeal from 103rd District Court, Cameron County; George W. Storter, Judge.

Prior report: Tex.App., 660 S.W.2d 633.

Before the court en banc.

On state’s petition for discretionary review: judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed; cause remanded to the Court of Appeals.

ONION, P.J., and TEAGUE, J., dissent.

W.C. DAVIS and WHITE, JJ., not participating.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Beacon Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Spiezio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



/s/ JAMES M. SPIEZIO James M. Spiezio Chief Financial OfficerMarch 15, 2010


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive 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 of pSivida Limited (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Ashton, Managing Director of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:June 18, 2008



|                |  |                  
|--------------- |  | -----------------
|/s/ Paul Ashton
|Name:           |  | Paul Ashton      
|Title:          |  | Managing Director
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5959 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5959

  To make ineligible for visas, admission, or parole aliens that are 
       holders of passports issued by the Palestinian Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 2023

 Mr. Tiffany (for himself and Mr. Ogles) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make ineligible for visas, admission, or parole aliens that are 
       holders of passports issued by the Palestinian Authority.

    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 ``Guaranteeing Aggressors Zero 
Admission'' or the ``GAZA Act''.

SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR VISAS, ADMISSION, OR PAROLE.

    An alien that is holder of a passport issued by the Palestinian 
Authority shall be--
            (1) inadmissible to the United States;
            (2) ineligible to receive a visa or other documentation to 
        enter the United States; and
            (3) otherwise ineligible to be admitted or paroled into the 
        United States or to receive any other benefit under the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HA NA HI LS ENRATH a n dOLI VER HI L S E NR AT H, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, a nd N A N A H I L S E N R A T H ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs, v. T H E S W I S S C O N F E D E R A T I O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 17127 D. C . No . C V- 0 7 - 0 2 7 8 2 - WHA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m H . A l s up, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N a n dB E A , C ir c u it J u d g e s . 

# FI LED NO V 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 17127 - 2- H an a H i l sen rath an dO l i v er H i l sen rath ap p eal p ro se th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u d g m en td i sm i ssi n g th ei r act i o n ag ai n stth e S w i ss C o n fed erat i o n an dS w i ss go vernm entoffi ci al s a l l egi ng vi ol at i on of thei r r i gh t s und erthe U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo, A f - Cap, I nc . v . Che v r on O v e rs e as ( C ongo) L td. , 475 F . 3d 1080, 1085- 86 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he H i l se nraths al l eged thatthe S w i ss C on fe dera t i on , the F eder al A tt orney G ener al of S w i t ze rl and and an em pl oyee of the S w i ss A tt orney G ener al vi ol at ed the H i l s e nr a ths ’ c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s w he n the yf r oz e the H i l s e nr a ths ’ S w i s s ba nk as se t s duri ng the course of a c ri m i nal i nv es t i gat i on i nt o al l egedl y i l l i ci tfi nanci al deal i ng s. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the ac t i on for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n b e c au s e th e S w is s g o v e rn m e n t a n dits e m p lo y e e s a r e im m u n e f r o m th is ac t i on un der the F orei gn S ov er ei gn Im m un i t i es A ct , 28 U . S . C . §§ 13 30 , 16 02 et s e q. ( “ F S I A ” ) a nd the H i l s e nr a ths di d note s t abl i s h the appl i c abi l i tyof a nyof the F S I A ’s e x c e p tio n s to s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity . See Securi t y P aci f i c N at . B an k v . D e rde r i an , 8 7 2 F .2 d2 8 1 , 2 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( if th e “c la im d o e s n o t f

a ll w ith in one of the e xc e pt i ons , the c ourtc a nnote nt e rt a i n the a c t i on” a nd i tm us tdi s m i s s the ac t i on agai nstthe forei gn st at e) . AF F I RME D.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0957

_____________________________ S HEDRICK L URRY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for L eon County

. Martin A. Fitzpatrick , Judge

. July 10, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur.

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

.

_____________________________2 Shedrick Lurry, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24787-24788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12303]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-510-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

May 10, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 7, 1996, Williams Natural Gas Company (WNG) 
Post Office Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed a request with the 
Commission in Docket No. CP96-510-000, pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 
for authorization to utilize facilities originally installed for the 
delivery of NGPA Section 311 transportation gas to Public Service 
Company of Colorado (PSCo) in Weld County, Colorado, for any purpose 
authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, 
all as more fully set forth in the request on file with the Commission 
and open to public inspection.
    WNG proposes to utilize existing NGPA Section 311 transportation 
facilities for other deliveries of gas to PSCo. The facilities were 
originally installed for the delivery of transportation gas to Western 
Gas Supply Company (WGS), an intrastate pipeline. WGS was subsequently 
acquired by PSCo. Until recently, NGPA Section 311 authority has been 
sufficient for gas deliveries to PSCo; however, PSCo and WNG agree that 
it would offer PSCo more flexibility to have the additional delivery 
authority.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after

[[Page 24788]]

the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be 
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of 
the NGA.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12303 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12317]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[OR-957-00-1420-00: G6-0146]


Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oregon, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.

Willamette Meridian

Oregon

T. 18 S., R. 1 W., accepted April 30, 1996
T. 40 S., R. 2 W., accepted March 6, 1996
T. 19 S., R. 6 W., accepted April 30, 1996
T. 28 S., R. 9 W., accepted April 23, 1996
T. 30 S., R. 13 W., accepted April 15, 1996
T. 31 S., R. 15 W., accepted April 15, 1996

Washington

T. 6 N., R. 15 E., accepted April 30, 1996
T. 23 N., R. 9 W., accepted March 6, 1996

    If protests against a survey, as shown on any of the above plat(s), 
are received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest(s). A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    The plat(s) will be placed in the open files of the Oregon State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1515 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97201, and will be available to the public as a matter of 
information only. Copies of the plat(s) may be obtained from the above 
office upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest 
against a survey must file with the State Director, Bureau of Land 
Management, Portland, Oregon, a notice that they wish to protest prior 
to the proposed official filing date given above. A statement of 
reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the 
State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the 
State Director within thirty (30) days after the proposed official 
filing date.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, survey and 
subdivision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, (1515 S.W. 
5th Avenue) P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208.

    Dated: May 6, 1996.
Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,
Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.
[FR Doc. 96-12317 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M