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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 7263

THOMAS T. DILLARD, JR.

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

FRANK PERRY; W. DAVID GUICE; GEORGE SOLOMON; PAULA Y. SMITH; MARSHALL PIKE; JASMINE T. BELYEW; JONNITA BAKER; HOWARD BELK; A. BARNES; LITONYA CARTER; GAIL BIEBER; WARDEN JOYNER; S. WHITE; MIKE BALL; MIKE SLAGLE; CYNTHIA THORNTON; THOMAS ASBELL; SHEILA GREENE; ASST. SUPERINTENDENT TOMLINSON; K. DALRYMPLE; JASON PENLAND; LAUREN HARRELL; D. GIBBS; C. HERNANDEZ ; PAULA PAGE; DAVID MAY; CLAUDIA JONES; TIM JONES; J. DRIGGERS; PROGRAM SUPERVISOR BUCHANAN; G. GARNER; UNIT MANAGER CROWE; ASST. UNIT MANAGER GREEN; F. SPEER; NURSE PITTMAN; NURSE MELTON; HOPE SMITH; DOCTOR UMESI; FRANCESCA SHON; NURSE WOLFE;
NURSE BUCHA NAN; RASHIA L. NORMAN; SCARLETT R. ASWELL; CRISSY H. SMITH; P. G. CHRISAWN; P. KIRBY; CASE MANAGER NIVENS; B. LIDE; L. NORRIS; CASE MANAGER HUGHES; J. G. DUCKWORTH; TRANSFER COORDINATOR RUDISILL; J. CANNON; CARRIE TUCKER; GARY JUNKER; KRISTIE STANBACK; JEF FREY FIELDS; G. CRUTCHFIELD; PROGRAM SUPERVISOR STEWART; T. LOCKAMY; DR. LIGHTSEY; T. DEAL; K. FAIRLEY; NURSE GIL; GEORGIA BRYANT; SERGEANT WEBB; NURSE GARNER; NICOLE SPRUELL; ERIK A. HOOKS; JOHN/JANE DOE, Pharmacy Supervisor; JOHN/JANE DOE, Medical Superv isor; JOHN/JANE DOE, Case Manager; JOHN/JANE DOE, Social Worker; JOHN/JANE DOE, Nurse

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:17

- ct

- 03119

- D )

Submitted : January 17, 2019 Decided: January 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Thomas T. Dillard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Thomas T. Dillard, Jr. appeals the district court’s order s accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)

complaint and de nying reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Dillard v. Perry , No. 5:17

- ct

- 03119

- D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017 & Aug. 10, 2018) . We

dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Craig R. GRISWOLD and Robin Griswold, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-56592.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued May 7, 2009.

Resubmitted Sept. 16, 2010.

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Timothy Sandefur, Esquire, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Shawn D. Hagerty, Esquire, Best Best & Krieger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RYMER, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*311MEMORANDUM *

We review this case de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Serrano v. Francis,*345 F.3d 1071, 1076-77, 1082 (9th Cir.2003).

The Griswolds’ right to vote on municipal assessments was established by state law, not federal law, so the cases regarding waiver of federal constitutional or statutory rights do not control. To the extent that their claims are matters of federal constitutional law, we must apply a case-by-case analysis rather than a categorical approach. *See Lynch v. City of Alhambra,*880 F.2d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir.1989). Under the factors established in *Lynch,*the Griswolds’ waiver must be treated as voluntary, and the waiver is not rendered unenforceable as contrary to the public interest. *See id.*at 1126-28. A city may condition the receipt of a building permit upon the acceptance of certain conditions, so long as those conditions are reasonably related to the burden the proposed building project will create. *See Schott v. City of Kingman,*461 F.2d 593, 593-94 (9th Cir.1972).

Under *County of Imperial v. McDougal,*19 Cal.3d 505, 138 Cal.Rptr. 472, 564 P.2d 14 (1977) and *Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa,*69 Cal.App.3d 74, 137 Cal.Rptr. 804 (Cal.Ct.App.1977), *narrowed on other grounds and codified by*Cal. Gov’t Code § 66020, the Griswolds’ agreement to the deferral of the assessments and their construction of the improvements under their permit effected a valid waiver of their right to challenge the conditions of their permit. *See also Hensler v. City of Glendale,*8 Cal.4th 1, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244, 876 P.2d 1043; 1055 n. 9 (1994) (“The Legislature has now codified *[Pfeiffer’s*] rule that one who accepts the benefits of a permit may not later challenge conditions imposed on or in the permit.”).

*Pfeiffer*holds that a landowner cannot “comply with a condition ‘under protest,’ construct the required improvement, and then maintain an action,” because “the proper method to test the validity of conditions in a building permit is a proceeding in mandamus.... ” *Pfeiffer,*69 Cal.App.3d at 76,137 Cal.Rptr. 804. Though the Gris-wolds seek a remedy for something other than inverse condemnation as was the case in *Pfeiffer,*this is a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this case. Economic disadvantages in litigating the claimed invalidity of permit conditions before proceeding with construction do not, under *Pfeiffer,*amount to compulsion rendering the waiver invalid. *See id.*at 78, 137 CaLRptr. 804.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > News Articles > FMC Seeks Public Comments on New Maersk & Hapag-Lloyd Cooperative Agreement

FMC Seeks Public Comments on New Maersk & Hapag-Lloyd Cooperative Agreement


Posted on:


June 7, 2024 The Federal Maritime Commission has opened a 12-day comment period allowing interested members of the public to respond to Maersk and Hapag Lloyd’s newly filed vessel sharing agreement, the Gemini Cooperation Agreement. Instructions for submitting comments are included in a Notice of Agreements Filed published in the Federal Register yesterday.  The deadline for submitting comments is Tuesday, June 18, 2024. Comments submitted are confidential under 46 CFR 535.608 and subject to the exceptions noted there. The agreement will allow Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd to globally coordinate their vessel operations. The parties propose operating under a structure whereby major ports of call will be served directly (the Mainline Network), and other ports will be served by a shuttle services (the Shuttle Network). Activities conducted under agreements filed with the Commission and in effect are not subject to federal antitrust laws. If the Commission takes no action, the Gemini Agreement will become effective on July 15, 2024. The Gemini Cooperation Agreement (No. 201429) is available for public inspection in the Commission’s online Agreement Library. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are not currently parties to the same vessel sharing agreement.
 News Articles  Press Releases  VOCC
 Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 28, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00105

- CV

S. W., Jr., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BE FORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KE LLY, AND SMITH

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on January 24, 2020 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment but that there was error requiring correction. The refore, the C ourt

modifies the trial court’s judgment to include the suffi x “ Jr. ” when referring to S.W., Jr. and to

replace the suff

ix “ Jr. ” with “ III ” w hen referring to appellant ’ s child ’ s name . The Court affirms

the judgment as modified. Because a ppellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on

of costs is made.
#### Reginald Hogan, Appellant, v Barbara L. McClain, Formerly Known as Barbara L. Hogan, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d *107278]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff a credit against the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence in an amount less than the total mortgage principal reduction payments that he made. The parties’ 1992 stipulation concerning the disposition of the marital residence was incorporated but not merged in the parties’ 1993 divorce judgment. The stipulation provided that plaintiff would receive a credit for any reduction in mortgage principal he made from the time the parties separated in August of 1989 until the property was transferred. Plaintiff, however, breached the terms of the stipulation by failing to cooperate with brokers or real estate agents in the showing and potential sale of the property and in generally behaving in an obstructionist manner *(see, Fugelsang v Fugelsang,*131 AD2d 810, 812; *see also, Matter of Meccico v Meccico,*76 NY2d 822, 823-824, *rearg denied*76 NY2d 889; *Alger v Alger,*183 AD2d 1000). Thus, the court was within its powers in granting plaintiff a credit for only those principal reduction payments made up to the date of the divorce judgment.

Plaintiff also contends that he is entitled to an additional credit against the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence based upon his overpayment of child support. We are unable to review that contention, however, because the record contains no evidence of the amount of child support ordered and the amount allegedly overpaid. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J.—Enforce Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            Section 906 Certification
                                     by the
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

         Each of Thomas J. Mazzarisi, Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen J.
Schoepfer, Chief Financial Officer, of JAG Media Holdings, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

         (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
April 30, 2004 ("Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Company.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Thomas J. Mazzarisi                              /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer
-----------------------                              ------------------------
Name: Thomas J. Mazzarisi                            Name: Stephen J. Mazzarisi

Date: June 21, 2004
Exhibit 32









CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of GameState Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Cameron King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and



(2)

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









/s/ Cameron King



Cameron King

Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2003



























In connection with the Quarterly Report of GameState Entertainement, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Gord McDougall, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and



(2)

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









/s/ Gord McDougall



Gord McDougall

Acting Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Flores, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 270]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered June 28, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On March 8, 1995, the defendant was arrested for selling two glassine envelopes of heroin to an undercover officer during a buy-and-bust operation on the corner of Irving Avenue and Himrod Street in Brooklyn. According to the defendant, he merely acted as a purchasing agent for the undercover officer, who had been rebuffed by the narcotics merchants in the neighborhood because he was a stranger.

The defendant contends that the trial court’s agency charge improperly marshaled the evidence, expressed a bias in favor of the prosecution, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. These contentions were not preserved for appellate review because no objection to the charge was made at trial on those grounds *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, these contentions are without merit. The record reveals that the trial court fairly and impartially set forth the contentions of the parties to the extent necessary to explain the concept of agency in the context of a drug transaction *(see,*CPL 300.10 [2]; *People v Saunders,*64 NY2d 665, 667). Moreover, the charge as a whole *302adequately explained the agency defense and the prosecution’s burden of proof *(see, People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830, 832). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### Gerald Lee McCARTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William E. SMITH; Archie Bruton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-6005.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Gerald Lee McCarty, Appellant pro se.

*304Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Lee McCarty appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McCarty v. Smith,*No. 5:09-ct-03126-D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2010). We deny McCarty’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
NO. 07-07-0438-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	DECEMBER 19, 2007

	______________________________

	MICHAEL ANTHONY DIAZ, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;

	NO. CR-07F-105; HONORABLE ROLAND SAUL, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant, Michael Anthony Diaz filed a notice of appeal from his conviction for assault on a public servant October 17, 2007.  On that same day, the trial court filed its certification representing that appellant has the right of appeal.  However, the appellate record reflects that appellant failed to sign the certification pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) which requires the certification to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him.  

	Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County (trial court) for further proceedings.   On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal and if so, to obtain his signature on an amended trial court’s certification.

	  If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and any necessary orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings, conclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  The trial court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, with the Clerk of this Court by January 21, 2008.  

								Per Curiam. 

Do not publish.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00179

- CV

Rodney WARRIOR

, Appellant

v.

Maria Cristina WARRIOR

, Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar Co unty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI07193 Honorable Monique Diaz , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due on June 24 , 2022. On June 30 , 202 2

, t he court reporter filed a notice of late record indicating the reporter’s record was not filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court no later tha n July 11, 2022 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided , the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Just iceIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of July, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Cl erk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the ZAT1 AJT (05) Exploratory Clinical Trials of Mind and Body Interventions.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Exploratory Clinical Trials of Mind and Body Interventions Review Panel.                    

*Date:*                         December 1, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center,  5701 Marinelli Road,  Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ashlee Tipton, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Center for Complementary, and Integrative Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3849,                         *Ashlee.Tipton@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 24, 2017.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-23458 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P