alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1790

In re: KEVIN LEE MYERS, JR. , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:17

- cr - 00018

- LCB

- 1 )

Submitted : October 5, 2021 Decided: January 14, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kevin Lee Myers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1790 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Kevin Lee Myers, Jr. , petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1790 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
----

----

|   |                  |   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC.                                                  |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Dated: March 23, 2010 |   |                                                              |   |
|   |                  |   | By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath                                         |   |
|   |                  |   |        Dennis M. McGrath       |   |
|   |                  |   |        Chief Executive Officer |   |

----

----
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Illinois

Jacob M. Scheiner Ira )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 12 C 2653

Midas, Inc., et al.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of %, along with costs.

the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

X other:

Judgment is entered for Defendants on the federal-law claims and relinquishes jurisdiction over

the state-law claims.

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

X decided by Judge Edmond E. Chang on a motions dismiss.

. 

Date: Jan 29, 2013 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

/s/Sandra Brooks

Case: 1:12-cv-02653 Document #: 61 Filed: 01/29/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1616
#### 204.7101 Definitions.

*Accounting classification reference number (ACRN)* means any combination of a two position alpha/numeric code used as a method of relating the accounting classification citation to detailed line item information contained in the schedule.

*Attachment* means any documentation, appended to a contract or incorporated by reference, which does not establish a requirement for deliverables.

*Definitized item,* as used in this subpart, means an item for which a firm price has been established in the basic contract or by modification.

*Exhibit* means a document, referred to in a contract, which is attached and establishes requirements for deliverables. The term shall not be used to refer to any other kind of attachment to a contract. The DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List, is always an exhibit, rather than an attachment.

*Nonseverable deliverable,* as used in this subpart, means a deliverable item that is a single end product or undertaking, entire in nature, that cannot be feasibly subdivided into discrete elements or phases without losing its identity.

*Undefinitized item,* as used in this subpart, means an item for which a price has not been established in the basic contract or by modification.

[56 FR 36289, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 34468, July 3, 1995; 70 FR 58982, Oct. 11, 2005]
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Illinois

Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, et al. )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 12 C 3776

David Kurtz, et al.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of %, along with costs.

the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

x other:

 Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against Defendants in the total sum of $334,254.67.

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

X decided by Judge Edmond E. Chang on a motion for entry of judgment.

 

Date: Dec. 20, 2012 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

/s/ Sandra Brooks

Case: 1:12-cv-03776 Document #: 30 Filed: 12/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:117
22.1008-1 Obtaining wage determinations. ( a ) Contracting officers may obtain most prevailing wage determinations using the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website. Contracting officers may also use the Department of Labor's e98 electronic process, located on the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website, to request a wage determination directly from the Department of Labor. If the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* database does not contain the applicable prevailing wage determination for a contract action, the contracting officer must use the e98 process to request a wage determination from the Department of Labor.
( b ) In using the e98 process to obtain prevailing wage determinations, contracting officers shall provide as complete and accurate information on the e98 as possible. Contracting officers shall ensure that the email address submitted on an e98 request is accurate.
( c ) The contracting officer must anticipate the amount of time required to gather the information necessary to obtain a wage determination, including sufficient time, if necessary, to contact the Department of Labor to request wage determinations that are not available through use of the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov*.
( d ) Although the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website provides assistance to the contracting agency to select the correct wage determination, the contracting agency remains responsible for the wage determination selected. If the contracting agency has used the e98 process, the Department of Labor will respond to the contracting agency based on the information provided on the e98. The contracting agency may rely upon the Department of Labor response as the correct wage determination for the contract.
( e ) To obtain the applicable wage determination for each contract action, the contracting officer shall determine the following information concerning the service employees expected to be employed by the contractor and any subcontractors in performing the contract: ( 1 ) Determine the classes of service employees to be utilized in performance of the contract using the Wage and Hour Division's *Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations* (Directory). The Directory can be found on Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* Library Page, and is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office.
( 2 ) Determine the locality where the services will be performed (see 22.1009).
( 3 ) Determine whether 41 U.S.C. 6707(c) applies (see 22.1008-2, 22.1010 and 22.1012-2).
( 4 ) Determine the wage rate that would be paid each class if employed by the agency and subject to the wage provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5341 and/or 5332 (see 22.1016).
( f ) If the contracting officer has questions regarding the procedures for obtaining a wage determination, or questions regarding the selection of a wage determination, the contracting officer should request assistance from the agency labor advisor.
[71 FR 36933, June 28, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 24207, Apr. 29, 2014; 84 FR 19847, May 6, 2019; 86 FR 71325, Dec. 15, 2021]
#### Muriel A. Kynast, as Administratrix of the Estate of Austin Hermann, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Dora Holding Corp., Appellant.

Judgment entered February 15, 1963, for the sum of $8,432.35, in an action for broker’s commissions, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and a new trial directed, with costs to abide the event. It was prejudicial error to exclude the testimony of the witness Maekler with reference to his conversation with the witness Brezel representing the alleged buyer. The offered testimony is relevant on whether there was a meeting of the minds of the seller and the buyer. Said testimony was excluded as hearsay, an untenable ground not relied on by plaintiffs on this appeal. Plaintiffs, instead, erroneously argue the evidence was cumulative, a ground not relied on at the trial. Defendant, in reference to this significant meeting, is entitled to offer the evidence of any person present at the said meeting whether or not it appears to be cumulative. On the retrial it may well be that there should be submitted to the jury for resolution the ambiguity apparently existing in the provision of plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 to the effect that defendant was not to be obligated in the event a “ Contract is not drawn” *(Concoff*v. *Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Calif.,*4 N Y 2d 630, 637), and the further issue of whether or not there was a willful default on the part of the seller as claimed by plaintiffs. If said provision “ contract is not drawn ” referred to the execution of a contract of sale rather than to its drafting, then this would bear directly on defendant’s liability. (Cf. *Heller & Henretig*v. *3620-168th St. Inc.,*302 N. Y. 326, 329-330.) Moreover, if as defendant contends the seller and purchaser were unable, in good faith, to agree on the distribution of an increased first mortgage, then a jury may find there was no deal and defendant did not willfully default as plaintiffs allege. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Yalente, McNally and Staley, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40495 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO VICENTE VARGAS

- FERNANDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 1187

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Vicente Vargas

- Fernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vargas

- Fernandez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 16 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40495 Document: 00513081136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 40495

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-40495 Document: 00513081136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Louis R. Lynn, Deceased. Rose W. Lynn, as Administratrix of the Estate of Louis R. Lynn, Deceased, Appellant; United States of America, Respondent.

In a proceeding by the United States, as an alleged creditor of an estate, to compel the administratrix to render and file her account and for a judicial settlement thereof, the administratrix appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County, made May 3, *1963*upon reargument, which adhered to the court’s original decision granting the petition and directing the administratrix to file her account. By her notice of appeal the administratrix seeks also “to bring up for review” *811an alleged “order” of the Surrogate’s Court, dated July 31, 1962, in which the court had “ set this matter down for a hearing.” Order dated May 3, 1963 affirmed, without costs. No opinion. The time of the administratrix to comply with the order appealed from is extended until 30 days after entry of the order hereon. Appeal from “order” of July 31, 1962 dismissed, without costs. The record on appeal contains no such order; and no appeal lies from the former Surrogate’s memorandum dated July 31, 1962, which has been mistakenly described in the notice of appeal as an order. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Skip to contentU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs · Office Of Inspector GeneralStrategic Plans- Home  |   
- VAOIG HOTLINE    |   
- Site Search &   Navigation 
   Query  Search-    - Contact     Us      - HOTLINE 
    - Freedom of Information Act       (FOIA) 
    - Operations Phone       List 
    - More Contact Information    - Reports and Publications      - Reports 
    - Investigations       Press Releases 
    - E-FOIA       Frequent Requests 
    - Semiannual       Reports 
    - Statements to       Congress and Other Special Releases 
    - Strategic       Plans    - Join     the OIG      - Vacancy       Announcements 
    - Recruitment       Booklet    - ARRA      - VAOIG ARRA Home 
    - VAOIG ARRA       Training    - About     Us      - Office of       Investigations 
    - Office of Audits 
    - Office of       Healthcare Inspections 
    - Office of       Management and Administration 
    - Organizational       Chart 
- OIG Website Security &   Privacy Notices and Disclaimers 
- VA's Website Policies and Other   Important Links 
 www.va.gov
In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the OIG has developed a Strategic Plans that describe the structure, goals, and strategies for ensuring VA programs and operations are efficiently and effectively managed, and free of criminal activity, waste, and abuse. The OIG remains committed to achieving our long-term strategic goals through promoting positive change in VA, and ultimately, improving services to our Nation's veterans.
Strategic Plan for FY 2009-2015
10/1/2008 | View Strategic Plan (PDF)
Strategic Plan 2005-2010, Office of Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs
3/1/2005 | View Strategic Plan (PDF)
Office of Inspector General Strategic Plan 2001-2006
10/1/2000 | View Strategic Plan (PDF)
Strategic Plan FY 1998 - 2003
9/30/1997 | View Strategic Plan (PDF)

VAOIG Stragegic Plans are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. 

Please use either Adobe Acrobat Reader version 8 or equivalent PDF reader software to open and view our reports. Adobe Acrobat Reader may be obtained free of charge from Adobe's website. Vision-impaired customers and those with text-only browsers may want to try Access Adobe for converting PDF documents into text. Our disclaimer for third-party software products.

When trying to access the Adobe (.pdf) versions, we recommend that you click your right mouse button over the file link, then save the file to your hard drive (using "Save Target As" or "Save Link As" or your browser's equivalent). Open the file on your hard drive using your viewer program instead of your web browser.

Please send comments or suggestions to the VAOIG Webmaster.  http://www.va.gov/oig/publications/strategic-plans.asp   Last updated 9/25/09
#### Rose Zack, Executrix (Estate of William Guzauskas), et al. *v.*Kathryn Guzauskas et al.

*Bruce Mayor,*for the appellee (named defendant).

*Robert L. Hirtle,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Argued October 1

decided October 2, 1974

The motion by the named defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
#### 217.7404-2 Price ceiling.

UCAs shall include a not-to-exceed price.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report was prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN L. FRANKAllan L. Frank, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 5225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the 
Charter for the National Toxicology Program Special Emphasis Panel was 
renewed for an additional two-year period on January 7, 2021.
    It is determined that the National Toxicology Program Special 
Emphasis Panel is in the public interest in connection with the 
performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by 
law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and 
counsel of this group.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail Stop Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef878e9d9d869c8c83af828e8683c1818687c1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d555c4f4f544e5e517d505c545113535455135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 12, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00947 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### McAdam *vs.*The Weikel & Smith Spice Company.

{Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]

Where one party seeks to introduce secondary evidence of the contents of a letter sent to the other by mail, and has neither given notice to produce the original, nor inquired for it, calling attention to its date or its subject matter, the secondary evidence should he excluded, even though the other party resides beyond the limits of the state, and has answered interrogatories propounded by his own counsel requesting the production of all letters, generally, touching the cause of action, and has failed to produce or mention the particular one which the adversary wants, aud sending forward others, testifying that they are ail. Notice under sections 3508 and 3509 of the Code is the appropriate means of procuring the primary evidence, or of laying the foundation for secondary evidence.

Bleckley, Justice.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Courts general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURTS TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

AF HOLDINGS, LLC,

vs.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC

12 C 3516

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC

Paul F. Stack

Paul F. Stack

STACK & O'CONNOR CHARTERED

140 South Dearborn Street, Suite 411

Chicago, IL 60603

2698544 312-782-0690

✔

✔

✔

✔

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/14/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13
<PAGE>
 
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1(B)
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's Form S-
8 Registration Statements filed on January 29, 1987 (Reg. No. 33-11627);
September 28, 1987 (Reg. No. 33-17359); March 17, 1988 (Reg. No. 33-20706);
June 30, 1989 (Reg. No. 33-29636); June 23, 1992 (Reg. No. 33-48663); and
April 30, 1996 (Reg. No. 333-03001); and S-3 Registration Statement filed on
August 16, 1996 (Reg. No. 333-10311).
 
      /s/ Arthur Andersen
 
Houston, Texas
January 26, 1998