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

- 209 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 17

- 1691

___________ IN RE: PAUL GENE ROCKWOOD, JR., Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the Un ited States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1

- 16

- cv - 00332) District Court Judge: Yvette Kane

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 4, 2017 Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD, and FISHER, Circuit Ju dges

(Opinion filed : May 9, 2017 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM In February 2016, Paul Gene Rockwood, Jr. filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. By
order a nd memorandum entered on April 28, 2017, the District Court denied Rockwood’s § 2241 petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Rockwood now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to act on his § 2241 petition. Because the

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

District Court has already denied Rockwood’s § 2241 petition, we will dismiss as moot his petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re Austrian & German Holocaust Litig. , 250 F.3d 156, 162

- 63 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (mandamus petition requesting tha t court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon district court’s entry of final order).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUGO ZALDANA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KB HOME, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-3399 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SUBMIT CHAMBERS COPY OF

DOCUMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH

GENERAL ORDER 45 AND THE

COURT’S STANDING ORDERS

On April 23, 2010, plaintiff electronically filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff

has violated General Order 45 and the Court’s Standing Orders, however, by failing to

deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the business day following the day that

the papers are filed electronically, one paper copy of each document that is filed

electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the judge’s name,

case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See General Order 45 § VI.G; see also

Standing Orders for Civil Cases Assigned to the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to comply with General Order 45 and the Court’s

Standing Orders by immediately submitting a chambers copy of the above-referenced

document. Plaintiff is hereby advised that if he fails in the future to comply with General

Order 45 and the Court’s Standing Order to provide a chambers copy of each

electronically-filed document, the Court may impose sanctions, including, but not limited to,

Case 3:08-cv-03399-MMC Document 108 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a chambers copy has not

been timely provided to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03399-MMC Document 108 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Nelson MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30976

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 2007.

Robert S. Noel, II, Monroe, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Allison Duncan Bushnell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Nelson Maldonado pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry into the United States following deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. He contends that the district court erred in refusing to depart downward on grounds of cultural assimilation. The record reflects that the downward departure was denied because the district court believed it was unwarranted based on the facts of this case. We *243lack jurisdiction to review this ruling. *See United States v. Hernandez,*457 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir.2006).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32



Certification



Each of the undersigned officers of Allin Corporation (the Company), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard W. Talarico
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  | 
|November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Dean C. Praskach   
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALTZ ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWITT ASSOCIATES,

Defendant. /

No. C-08-04626 VRW

ORDER

The court directs Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D Laporte to conduct a settlement conference in

this matter. The court vacates the previous referral to Magistrate Judge Laporte of the discovery

disputes in this matter. 

In accordance with the court’s December 18, 2009 order, the court refers the discovery

disputes in this matter to the Chief Magistrate Judge or her designee, other than Magistrate Judge

Laporte. Counsel will be advised of the date, time and place of appearance by notice from the

assigned magistrate judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2010 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04626-VRW Document 97 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 1
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN JOHN TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY,

Defendant.                                                          /

No. C 08-1114 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL  

On September 23, 2008, mail was sent to plaintiff at the county jail address he

provided to the court and was returned undelivered on September 29, 2008, marked as “not

in custody.”  More than sixty days have passed since the mail was returned to the court

undelivered.  Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 3-11(a) which requires that a

party proceeding pro se must "promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing

parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address" when his address

changes.  Local Rule 3-11(b) allows the court to dismiss a complaint without prejudice when

mail directed to a pro se party is returned as not deliverable and the pro se party fails to send

a current address within sixty days of the return of the undelivered mail.  This action is

dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to keep the court informed of his address

in compliance with Local Rule 3-11(a).  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 ______________________ Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01114-MHP   Document 9   Filed 04/16/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T06:29:59-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27921]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of partially closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make 
such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary into the state of 
morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, 
fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The meeting 
will include discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy. The executive session of this meeting will be closed 
to the public.

DATES: The open session of the meeting will be held on Friday, December 
17, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The closed Executive Session will 
be held from 10:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Bo Coppedge Room of Alumni 
Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander T.J. Linardi, 
Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the 
Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, (410) 
293-1503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of meeting is provided per the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session 
of the meeting will consist of discussions of personnel issues at the 
Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. Discussion of 
such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, 
which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the 
public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in 
writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public 
because it will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(2), 
(5), (6), (7) and (9) of title 5, United States Code. Due to 
unavoidable delay in administrative processing, the normal 15 days 
notice could not be provided.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
J.H. Wagshul,
Commander, Judge Advocate General Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-27921 Filed 12-17-04; 9:59 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### Monk *v.*Foy.

November 14, 1912.

Illegality of execution. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior •court. December 6, 1911.

*John J. Murray,*for plaintiff in error.

Fish, C. J.

• Foy obtained a judgment against Monk for $107 and for the recovery of the north half of a described city lot. Execution issued for the $107, and was levied upon the property of the defendant. He interposed an affidavit of illegality, the substance of which was, that, within a short time after the levy, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a parol contract by the terms of which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff $625 in full settlement of the judgment, and that the plaintiff was to have the fi. fa. marked satisfied, and to convey to the defendant the portion of the lot recovered from him. The defendant paid $1 as part of the consideration of $625, for which the judgment was to be settled. No time was stated when the balance, $624, was to be paid. The plaintiff sold and conveyed the portion of the lot in question to a third person, and therefore could not make a title to the same to defendant. The defendant could not say whether such third person had notice of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was not stated in the affidavit of illegality that any tender had ever been made by the defendant to the plaintiff of the $624. According to the ruling made in *Hawkins*v. *Studdard,*132 *Ga.*265 (63 S. E. 852, 131 Am. St. R. 190), and 136 *Ga.*727 (71 S. E. 1112), the balance of $624 was due and payable at once; and it not appearing that the plaintiff sold and conveyed the portion of the lot before the defendant had an opportunity of paying or' tendering the balance, the affidavit of illegality, for this reason, if for no other, set forth no reason why the fi. fa. should not proceed. Accordingly the court did not err in dismissing the same on demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16588]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: Vol. 76, No. 122, 
Friday, June 24, 2011, page 37070.

Previously Announced Time and Date of Meetings: 1. Open to Public--10 
a.m.-12 Noon., and 2. Closed to Public--2-3 p.m., Wednesday June 29, 
2011.

Changes in Meetings: 
    1. For Meeting Open to the Public, rescheduled to 9-11 a.m.;
    2. Revised Agenda: 1. Briefing Matter: Lead 100 ppm, 2. Decisional 
Matter: Final 15(j) Rule for Drawstrings;
    3. Time for Closed Compliance Status Report rescheduled to 11 a.m.-
12 Noon;
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for Additional Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16588 Filed 6-28-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### Frederick Margolin, Respondent, v Lawrence Friedman, Defendant, and 670 Coney Island Avenue, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Judgment as to liability, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 8, 1976, after trial to a jury,- reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, the complaints against the defendants-appellants 670 Coney Island Avenue, Inc., and Crown Car Wash, Inc., dismissed, and the action severed as to them, and the matter remanded to Trial Term, New York County, for trial as against defendant Friedman on the issue of damages. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. There was no basis whatever in the evidence for any finding that the accident at the exit of the car wash was caused by anything other than loss of control of the nonappealing defendant’s vehicle when, as he admitted, he stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake after detachment from the facility’s towing mechanism. Neither design of the place, absence of a warning sign, nor maintenance of the place was shown to have been a causative factor. Defendants-appellants’ motions to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s evidence should have been granted. Concur — Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.; Kupferman, J. P., dissents and would affirm on the opinion of Spiegel, J.
Exhibit 15

November 7,
2007

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

We
are aware that Monster Worldwide, Inc. has incorporated by reference in its previously filed open Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81843,
333-63631, 333-50699, 333-18937 and 333-131899) its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, which includes our
report dated November 5, 2007 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), that report is
not considered part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. It should be noted
that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to November 5, 2007.

/s/
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
New York, New York

---



QuickLinks
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CARLOS OSCAR FUENTES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3302

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed March 28, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pasco County; Paul E. Firmani, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
### §3057k–21. Program

#### (a) In general

The Assistant Secretary may carry out a competitive demonstration program for making grants to tribal organizations or organizations serving Native Hawaiians with applications approved under parts A and B, to pay for the Federal share of carrying out programs, to enable the organizations described in this subsection to build their capacity to provide a wider range of in-home and community supportive services to enable older individuals to maintain their health and independence and to avoid long-term care facility placement.

#### (b) Supportive services

#### (1) In general

Subject to paragraph (2), supportive services described in subsection (a) may include any of the activities described in section 3030d(a) of this title.

#### (2) Priority

The Assistant Secretary, in making grants under this section, shall give priority to organizations that will use the grant funds for supportive services described in subsection (a) that are for in-home assistance, transportation, information and referral, case management, health and wellness programs, legal services, family caregiver support services, and other services that directly support the independence of the older individuals served.

#### (3) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to prohibit the provision of supportive services under part A or B.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §636, as added Pub. L. 116–131, title V, §501(3), Mar. 25, 2020, 134 Stat. 268.)
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, James H. Long, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of INX Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 2, 2006 /s/ JAMES H. LONG   James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer     
28
#### Gertrude Gerstler v. Alfred Gerstler.

Motion for leave to withdraw appeal granted and the appeal taken by plaintiff-appellant from the order and judgment entered on June 30, 1961 is withdrawn on consent. Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.