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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1266

In re: SANDRA DENISE CURL, a/k/a Sandra Curl-Jacobs El, a/k/a Sandra Curl 

Jacobs, a/k/a Minister Sandra El; In re: PERCY LEROY JACOBS, a/k/a Percy El 

Jacobs, a/k/a Percy Jacobs El, a/k/a Minister Percy El Jacobs,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(8:19-cr-00444-GJH-1; 8:19-cr-00444-GJH-2)

Submitted: March 22, 2022 Decided: March 23, 2022

Before WILKINSON, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Denise Curl, Percy Leroy Jacobs, Petitioners Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1266 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Denise Curl and Percy Leroy Jacobs petition for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order directing the district court to dismiss the indictment against them. We deny the 

petition.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). Mandamus 

may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 

353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

If Petitioners are convicted, they may challenge on appeal the orders at issue in this 

petition. Accordingly, the relief sought by Petitioners is not available by way of 

mandamus, so we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1266 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### 1422.406-9 Withholding from or suspension of contract payments.

HCAs shall establish procedures for collection and disposition of funds withheld under FAR 22.406-9, including liquidated damages.
**Exhibit32.2**

Certification Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

(1)                                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedJuly 7, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or780(d)); and

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

Dated:August 21, 2006
|        |   | /s/   Raymond F. Lancy |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial     |
|   |   | Officer                               |
|   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)         |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2

Eastern Division

Doctor John Doe, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07814

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Google Inc

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, November 7, 2011:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Pursuant to stipulation, this

case is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41. Civil case terminated.

Mailed notice(tsa, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07814 Document #: 7 Filed: 11/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:28
# Additional Indirect Cost Information and Example for Grants under Restricted Rate Programs 

If you are applying for a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) under a Restricted Rate Program that is subject to a statutory “supplement not supplant” restriction, you are required to use a restricted indirect cost rate.  See the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 75.563  [discretionary grants] at http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part75e.html or 34 CFR 76.563 [formula grants] at http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part76f.html, as applicable, and 34 CFR 76.564 through 76.569 at http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part76f.html.

Restricted rates for State Educational Agencies (SEA) are included on the SEA’s negotiated indirect cost rate agreement.  Restricted rates for Local Educational Agencies are provided by the SEA, using a method approved by ED.  The restricted rate requirements also apply to any subgrants from the prime recipient.

All applicants must use the restricted rate included on their negotiated indirect cost rate agreement.  Applicants for discretionary grants that are not a State or Local government and do not have a negotiated restricted rate, may use the 8% rate described at §76.564(c )(2).   If an applicant’s calculated restricted rate is less than 8%, the lower rate must be used for the application’s budget.  The 8% rate in §76.564(c)(2) must also be multiplied by the modified total direct cost base described in §76.569.

For grants under Restricted Rate Programs, § 76.569 requires that grantees multiply their restricted indirect cost rate by:

**“Total direct costs of the grant minus capital outlays, subgrants, and other distorting or unallowable items as specified in the grantee's indirect cost rate agreement.”**

Commonly, such a procedure is referred to as multiplying by a modified total direct cost base.  

Below is a simplified example for calculating indirect costs for a Restricted Rate program using budget categories from the ED 524 form, Budget Information – Non-Construction Programs.  The ED 524 and Instructions can be found at:  http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html

For the purposes of this example, a 6% restricted rate from a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement is used to calculate indirect costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-03-1997             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997             NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                          90,823                  90,823
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,854                  56,854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,232                 164,232
<PP&E>                                         174,902                 174,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,390                  92,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,097                 266,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,015                  39,015
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,418                   2,418
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,977                 217,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,097                 266,097
<SALES>                                        113,448                 338,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,448                 338,082
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,911                 164,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,540                 126,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,997                  46,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,372                  17,553
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,625                  29,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,625                  29,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22                     .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22                     .61
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,044
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,322,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (32,447)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,690,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,368,836
<PP&E>                                       3,086,461
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,464,096)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,827,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,601,448
<BONDS>                                      1,375,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,410
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,634,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,827,046
<SALES>                                      6,881,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,881,511
<CGS>                                        5,054,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,054,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,207
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,207
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,207
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
### Digitization of a geologic map for the Quebec-Maine-Gulf of Maine global geoscience transect

By: Bruce E. WrightDavid B. Stewart

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1041

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
1.703 Class determinations and findings. ( a ) A class D&F provides authority for a class of contract actions. A class may consist of contract actions for the same or related supplies or services or other contract actions that require essentially identical justification.
( b ) The findings in a class D&F shall fully support the proposed action either for the class as a whole or for each action. A class D&F shall be for a specified period, with the expiration date stated in the document.
( c ) The contracting officer shall ensure that individual actions taken pursuant to the authority of a class D&F are within the scope of the D&F.
[50 FR 1726, Jan. 11, 1985, and 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985 , as amended at 67 FR 13053, Mar. 20, 2002]
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the 

This PIA was approved on and reviewed on by the system owner 

certifying the information contained here is current and up to date. 

Contact Point 

Contact Person/Title: 

Contact Email: 

System Owner 

Program Office: 

Name/Title: 

Reviewing Official 

Kathleen Styles 

Chief Privacy Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Please submit completed Privacy Impact Assessments to the Privacy Safeguards Division at 

privacysafeguards@ed.gov.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ashley Robert Titus, Deceased, Respondent. Patricia Nicotera, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 412]—

*1204Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Chautauqua County (Stephen W Cass, S.), entered May 12, 2006. The order dismissed the petition seeking, inter alia, an order revoking the waiver of process and consent to probate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking, inter alia, an order revoking the waiver of process and consent to probate (waiver and consent) that she executed for the estate of her father and vacating probate. Petitioner contends that she signed the waiver and consent without realizing that, by doing so, she would be foreclosed from challenging her father’s will and its provisions. The waiver and consent was filed before petitioner attempted to revoke it, and Surrogate’s Court issued letters testamentary.

The Surrogate properly dismissed the petition. *“A*party seeking to set aside a probate decree entered upon his consent must show that such consent was obtained by fraud or overreaching . . . , was the product of misrepresentation or misconduct. . . , or that newly-discovered evidence, clerical error or other sufficient cause justifies the [relief sought]” *(Matter of Leeper,*53 AD2d 1054, 1055 [1976], *appeal dismissed*42 NY2d 910 [1977]). Here, petitioner failed to make such a showing. A “consent is clearly and essentially a stipulation made by a party to the proceeding^] and it must be treated in accordance with the rules governing stipulations in actions generally” *(Matter of Frutiger,*29 NY2d 143, 148). The record establishes that petitioner, a certified public accountant with a Master’s degree in business administration, signed and returned the waiver and consent to counsel for her father’s estate. She was also provided with a copy of the will prior to executing the waiver and consent. We thus conclude that petitioner’s “unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations that [s]he did not understand the significance of the waiver and consent ... do not provide a sufficient basis for vacatur of the probate decree” *(Matter of Hall,*185 AD2d 322, 323 [1992]; see *Leeper,*53 AD2d at 1055). Present— Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
No. 747.

#### American Ore Reclamation Company *v.*Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Company, Inc.

March 22, 1920.

*Mr. Henry B. Gayley*for petitioner.

*Mr. Otto C. Wierum*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Susan Dobrzeniecki, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07956

Honorable James F. Holderman

St. James Hospital, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, April 8, 2015:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James F. Holderman: Defendants Franciscan

Alliance, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Yates may file a reply in support of their Bills of Costs

[285], [286] by 4/14/2015. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (mgh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 288 Filed: 04/08/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4326
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting Documentation for Telephone Calls on October 9 andNovember 12, 2009 with 3M RepresentativesRegarding Fluorinated Gas ProductionDates:October9,2009and November 12, 2009Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #):Deborah Ottinger, EPA, 202-343-9149,Ottinger.deborah@epa.gov; Karen Schaffner, RTI,ksschaffner@rti.org; Carrie Richardson, RTI.Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees namesand emails if possible):3M: Brian Mader, Jeff Muffat, Dana Schnobrich, Mike Parent, Tom Herzberg, Mike Nash, Karl Warren, Mike Felco,Pat Schiller, Rob Haden,Holly Khasi.Summary of Discussion(e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.):The purpose of the conference call was to discuss emissionestimation techniques and analytical methods available tomeasure fluorinated gasemissions. 3M representatives noted that they develop emission factors based on process vent testing, material balances, and chemical engineeringprinciples. The costs of such development vary depending onthe type of measurement or calculation and on the nature ofthe process, i.e., thenumber of streams.3M invests a lot of effort to understand what’s going into reactors. They concentrate on active ingredients and side reactions that would hurt yield.This is emphasized from laboratory to pilot to plant.They analyze all streams, using GC/MS and NMR. Earlyanalysis helps to understand themass-balance. This is part of the development of the process.To analyze emissions, 3M begins by using FTIR. This reveals all infrared absorbers. Although smaller constituentsget swamped, most are visiblewith FTIR. Results are available right away.GC/MS is used next. Can separate out everything and use mass spectroscopy for unknowns.3M has sampled streams for varying lengths of time. Ifharvesting results from historic tests (e.g., for permits), they rely on three one-hour runs.These occur at steady state operations; analysts usuallygot same results within 20 minutes. 3M has used continuous FTIR for one hour. 3Mmonitored one process (a significant emission source) for 3 months.3M retests processes that undergo significant changes. Theypay attention to yields and will retest if there’s a shift in off-gas. If the changeincreases emissions, they will revisit EF. However, decreases in the EF might not be checked so quickly.Repeated testing of different processes over several yearshas shown emission factor variations of 13 to 30 percent within some processes. Thesevariations probably occur because the processes are tweaked to improve yields. A yield shift of 10 percent may be significant for emissions, eitherbecause less (or more) product is being emitted or becauseless (or more) by-product is being generated. 3M tracks critical parameters that varydepending on the process, e.g., condenser temperature, purity measurements, percent going to feeds.Written Comments Provided?No.Did they also submit to Docket?No.Date sent to EPA-CCDNone
### §1736y. Contract sanctity and producer embargo protection

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States—

(1) to foster and encourage the export of agricultural commodities and the products of such commodities;

(2) not to restrict or limit the export of such commodities and products except under the most compelling circumstances;

(3) that any prohibition or limitation on the export of such commodities or products should be imposed only in time of a national emergency declared by the President under the Export Administration Act; and

(4) that contracts for the export of such commodities or products entered into before the imposition of any prohibition or limitation on the export of such commodities or products should not be abrogated.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XI, §1133(a), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1489.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Export Administration Act, referred to in par. (3), probably means the Export Administration Act of 1979, Pub. L. 96–72, Sept. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 503, which was classified principally to chapter 56 (§4601 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title XVII, §1766(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2232, except for sections 11A, 11B, and 11C thereof (50 U.S.C. 4611, 4612, 4613).

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 1133(a) of Pub. L. 99–198. Section 1133(b) of Pub. L. 99–198 amended section 1736j of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the Food Security Act of 1985, and not as part of the Food for Peace Act which comprises this chapter.
1327.404-4 Contractor's release, publication, and use of data. ( a ) Insert clause 1352.227-70, *Rights in Data, Assignment of Copyright,* in all solicitations and contracts if FAR Clause 52.227-17 has been used in the solicitation or contract and the contracting officer wants the contractor to assign copyright to the Government.
( b ) In appropriate cases, the contracting officer may place limitations or restrictions on the contractor's exercise of its rights in data first produced in the performance of the contract, including a requirement to assign copyright to the Government or another party.