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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6089

CLYDE OWEN DAY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:11-cv-00079-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 28, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clyde Owen Day, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clyde Owen Day, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Day has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 
3

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3255 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to update an Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration fire protection safety standard to incorporate the 

current consensus standard for fire protection for styrene cross-linked 

composites manufacturing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan (for herself and Mr. SOUDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to update an Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration fire protection safety 

standard to incorporate the current consensus standard 

for fire protection for styrene cross-linked composites 

manufacturing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fire Protection Im5 provement and Correction Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 3255 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SPRAY FINISHING USING FLAMMABLE AND COM2 BUSTIBLE LIQUIDS SAFETY STANDARD. 

3 Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall, pursuant to sec5 tion 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

6 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)), issue a Spray Finishing Using 

7 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Safety Standard 

8 under section 1910.107 of title 29, Code of Federal Regu9 lations that— 

10 (1) is applicable only to employers utilizing 

11 manufacturing processes involving styrene cross12 linked composites (glass fiber reinforced plastics); 

13 and 

14 (2) incorporates or is consistent with chapter 

15 17 of the Standard for Spray Application Using 

16 Flammable or Combustible Materials of the National 

17 Fire Protection Association (NFPA 33 (2003 Edi18 tion)). 

19 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT MORATORIUM. 

20 Until the Secretary of Labor issues the standard re21 quired by section 2, the Secretary shall not— 

22 (1) issue a citation under section 9 of the Occu23 pational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 

24 658) for violating section 1910.107 of title 29, Code 

25 of Federal Regulations; 
3 

•HR 3255 IH 

1 (2) commence any enforcement action under 

2 section 10 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 659) for violating 

3 section 1910.107 of such title; or 

4 (3) issue a penalty against an employer under 

5 section 17 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 666) for violating 

6 section 1910.107 of such title, 

7 if the employer is operating in compliance with chapter 

8 17 of the Standard for Spray Application Using Flam9 mable or Combustible Materials of the National Fire Pro10 tection Association (NFPA 33 (2003 Edition)). 

Æ
NO. 93-388 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993

RUDOLPH STANK0

## , Petitioner and Appellant,

### -vSTATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of theThirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Russell K. Fillner, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Rudy Stanko, Laurel, Montana, pro se For Respondent: Dennis Paxinos, County Attorney, John Kennedy, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: November 5, 1993 Filed: Decided: December 10, 1993Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County,ordering defendant held onbail untilhis trial and denying defendant's subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. Rudy Stanko (Stanko)was charged by complaint in Yellowstone County with the misdemeanor offense of acting as an agent for a livestockdealerwithout possessing a livestock dealer's license. On June 11, 1993, he appeared in Yellowstone County Justice Court where a cash bail was ordered with respect to the misdemeanor charge. Stanko paid bail and is not now incarcerated. On June 21, 1993, Stanko filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Thirteenth Judicial District Court. The court denied the petition because the petition did not satisfy the requirementsfor issuance forawrit andbecause theDistrict Court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint filed in justice court. Stanko filed anotice of appeal tothisCourt on July 2, 1993, seeking tohave this Court overturn the District Court's denial. Stanko's appeal is reallyan attempt tohave thisCourt decide the question at issue. Stanko argues that he is due the writ because he is "restrained of liberty," which he defines as not being able to select and sell cattle. Stanko argues that he does not have to be incarcerated in order tobe eligible for a writ of habeas corpus, he just needs to be restrained of liberty. Thus, what Stanko seeks from this Court is permission to reinstate hisliberty interest, which he believes is his right to sell cattle without a license. The State argues Stanko has no right to a writ because he is not incarcerated. We agree. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA, provides: [Elvery person in prison or otherwise restrained of liberty within the statemay prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of imprisonment or restraint. 

# .

# .. Stanko isnot incarcerated. Hispetition seekingawrit torelease him from incarceration is thenmoot: The court cannot grant habeas corpus relief when the petitioner is not in custody. State v. Sor-Lokken (1991), 247 Mont. 343, 351, 805 P.2d 1367, 1373. Here, the court was without any power to grant Stanko his request. Affirmed

# . Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal OperatingRules, thisdecision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe publishedby its filingas apublic document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company.

We Concur:
#### § 27.35 Tests to determine life of critical components and subassemblies.

Replaceable components may be subjected to appropriate life tests at the discretion of MSHA.
### §5106. Handling criteria

The Secretary may prescribe criteria for handling hazardous material, including—

(1) a minimum number of personnel;

(2) minimum levels of training and qualifications for personnel;

(3) the kind and frequency of inspections;

(4) equipment for detecting, warning of, and controlling risks posed by the hazardous material;

(5) specifications for the use of equipment and facilities used in handling and transporting the hazardous material; and

(6) a system of monitoring safety procedures for transporting the hazardous material.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 763; Pub. L. 109–59, title VII, §7126, Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1909.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5106 | 49 App.:1805(a). | Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 93–633, §106(a), 88 Stat. 2157. |

Section

Before clause (1), the text of 49 App.:1805(a) (last sentence) is omitted as being included in "prescribe". In clause (4), the words "to be used" are omitted as surplus. In clause (6), the word "assurance" is omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–59 substituted "Secretary" for "Secretary of Transportation" in introductory provisions.
Searched for **https://www.fedpartnership.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.fedpartnership.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
COVID-19 Guidance for the Manufacturing 

Industry Workforce

OSHA is committed to protecting the health and safety of America’s workers and workplaces during 

these unprecedented times. The agency will be issuing a series of industry-specific alerts designed to 

keep workers safe.

If you are in the manufacturing industry, the following tips can help reduce the risk of exposure to 

the coronavirus:

 Encourage workers to stay home if they are sick. 

 Establish flexible work hours (e.g., staggered shifts), if feasible.

 Practice sensible social distancing and maintain six feet between co-workers, where possible. 

 For work activities where social distancing is a challenge, consider limiting the duration of these 

activities and/or implementing innovative approaches, such as temporarily moving or 

repositioning workstations to create more distance or installing barriers (e.g., plexiglass shields) 

between workstations.

 Monitor public health communications about COVID-19 recommendations for the workplace and 

ensure that workers have access to and understand that information.

 Train workers on how to properly put on, use/wear, take-off, and maintain protective clothing 

and equipment.

 Allow workers to wear masks over their nose and mouth to prevent spread of the virus.

 Encourage respiratory etiquette, including covering coughs and sneezes. 

 Discourage workers from using other workers’ tools and equipment. 

 Use Environmental Protection Agency-approved cleaning chemicals from List N or that have label 

claims against the coronavirus.

 Promote personal hygiene. If workers do not have access to soap and water for handwashing, 

provide alcohol-based hand rubs containing at least 60 percent alcohol. Provide disinfectants and 

disposable towels workers can use to clean work surfaces.

 Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

For more information, visit www.osha.gov/coronavirus or call 1-800-321-OSHA (6742).

OSHA issues alerts to draw attention to 

worker safety and health issues and solutions.

 • osha.gov/coronavirus • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • @OSHA_DOL

OSHA 4002-04 2020
### §2212. Position of Revitalization Coordinator

#### (a) Establishment

There is established, under the Oversight Board, the position of the Revitalization Coordinator.

#### (b) Appointment

#### (1) In general

The Revitalization Coordinator shall be appointed by the Governor as follows:

(A) Prior to the appointment of the Revitalization Coordinator and within 60 days of the appointment of the full membership of the Oversight Board, the Oversight Board shall submit to the Governor no less than three nominees for appointment.

(B) In consultation with the Oversight Board, not later than 10 days after receiving the nominations under subparagraph (A), the Governor shall appoint one of the nominees as the Revitalization Coordinator. Such appointment shall be effective immediately.

(C) If the Governor fails to select a Revitalization Coordinator, the Oversight Board shall, by majority vote, appoint a Revitalization Coordinator from the list of nominees provided under paragraph (A).

#### (2) Qualifications

In selecting nominees under paragraph (1)(A), the Oversight Board shall only nominate persons who—

(A) have substantial knowledge and expertise in the planning, predevelopment, financing, development, operations, engineering, or market participation of infrastructure projects, provided that stronger consideration may be given to candidates who have experience with Energy Projects and the laws and regulations of Puerto Rico that may be subject to an Expedited Permitting Process;

(B) does 1 not currently provide goods or services to the government of Puerto Rico (and, as applicable, is 2 not the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a person who provides or has provided goods and services to the government of Puerto Rico in the preceding 3 calendar years); and

(C) shall not be an officer, employee of, or former officer or employee of the government of Puerto Rico in the preceding 3 calendar years.

#### (3) Compensation

The Revitalization Coordinator shall be compensated at an annual rate determined by the Oversight Board sufficient in the judgment of the Oversight Board to obtain the services of a person with the skills and experience required to discharge the duties of the position, but such compensation shall not exceed the annual salary of the Executive Director.

#### (c) Assignment of personnel

The Executive Director of the Oversight Board may assign Oversight Board personnel to assist the Revitalization Coordinator.

#### (d) Removal

#### (1) In general

The Revitalization Coordinator may be removed for any reason, in the Oversight Board's discretion.

#### (2) Termination of position

Upon the termination of the Oversight Board pursuant to section 2149 of this title, the position of the Revitalization Coordinator shall terminate.

(Pub. L. 114–187, title V, §502, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 597.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "do".

2 So in original. Probably should be "are".
### **[CHAPTER 703—TRANSFERRED]**

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Former chapter 703 was renumbered chapter 511 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs. Former sections 70301 to 70305 were renumbered sections 51101 to 51105, respectively, of Title 51.
Fourth Department,

April, 1978

(April 7, 1978)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Moore, Appellant.

insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously reversed and defendant remanded to Supreme Court, Erie County, for resentencing in compliance with CPL 400.21, and otherwise judgment affirmed. Memorandum: With commendable candor the District Attorney acknowledges that CPL 400.21 was not complied with at sentencing and that defendant must be remanded for resentence in compliance therewith. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—reckless endangerment, etc.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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



         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of NCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2004 (the "Report") 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.





Date:  May 10, 2005                                  /s/ Michael J. Barrist
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Michael J. Barrist
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 10, 2005                                  /s/ Steven L. Winokur
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Steven L. Winokur
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
### §45103. Prohibited service

(a) Use of Alcohol or a Controlled Substance.—An individual may not use alcohol or a controlled substance after October 28, 1991, in violation of law or a United States Government regulation and serve as an airman, crewmember, airport security screening employee, air carrier employee responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration), or employee of the Administration with responsibility for safety-sensitive functions.

(b) Rehabilitation Required To Resume Service.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, an individual found to have used alcohol or a controlled substance after October 28, 1991, in violation of law or a Government regulation may serve as an airman, crewmember, airport security screening employee, air carrier employee responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator), or employee of the Administration with responsibility for safety-sensitive functions only if the individual completes a rehabilitation program described in section 45105 of this title.

(c) Performance of Prior Duties Prohibited.—An individual who served as an airman, crewmember, airport security screening employee, air carrier employee responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator), or employee of the Administration with responsibility for safety-sensitive functions and who was found by the Administrator to have used alcohol or a controlled substance after October 28, 1991, in violation of law or a Government regulation may not carry out the duties related to air transportation that the individual carried out before the finding of the Administrator if the individual—

(1) used the alcohol or controlled substance when on duty;

(2) began or completed a rehabilitation program described in section 45105 of this title before using the alcohol or controlled substance; or

(3) refuses to begin or complete a rehabilitation program described in section 45105 of this title after a finding by the Administrator under this section.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1222; Pub. L. 107–71, title I, §139(2), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 640.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 45103(a) | 49 App.:1434(b)(1). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §614(b); added Oct. 28, 1991, Pub. L. 102–143, §3(a), 105 Stat. 954. |
| 45103(b) | 49 App.:1434(b)(2). | |
| 45103(c) | 49 App.:1434(b)(3). | |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section" are added for clarity.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–71 substituted "screening employee" for "screening contract employee" wherever appearing.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 OmniReliant Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert DeCecco, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      October 13, 2010
              By:
              /s/  Robert
      DeCeccoRobert
      DeCecco
                Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief
                Financial
      Officer (Principal Executive
                and
      Principal Financial and Accounting
                Officer
#### In the Matter of Edward Koehl, Petitioner, v Harold Levy et al., Respondents.

[831 NYS2d 727]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel, among others, Wayne E Saitta, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to calendar the petitioner’s motion in a matter entitled *Koehl v Levy,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 7919/06, without requiring the *550petitioner to purchase an RJI number, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Prudenti, PJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### § 44.3 Parties.

Parties to proceedings under this part shall include the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the operator of the mine, and any representative of the miners in the affected mine. Any other person claiming a right of participation as an interested party in a proceeding may become a party upon application to the Assistant Secretary and the granting of such application. After referral of a petition to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, all applications for status as a party shall be made to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for his disposition.
#### Erick Hawkins, as Administrator of the Estate of Fern McGrath, Deceased, Respondent, v. Frederick J. Ringel, Appellant.

In an action to recover upon a promissory note, the defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered October 5, 1962, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out defendant’s answer; and (2) from the judgment, entered October 26, 1962 upon said order, in plaintiff’s favor for $5,347.98. Order reversed, without costs'; motion for summary judgment denied; and judgment vacated. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact which should be resolved after a plenary trial. Ughetta, Acting P. J., ICleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.