alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-4-2015

In Re: Jermaine Williams

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This February is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Jermaine Williams" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 128.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/128
BLD-098 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4635

___________

IN RE: JERMAINE A. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-01822)

____________________________________

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

January 30, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: February 4, 2015 )

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Jermaine A. Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on 

December 5, 2014. See Fed. R. App. P. 21. He requested that we either order the 

District Court to render a decision on the remaining unadjudicated claims in his habeas 

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or grant him habeas relief and order his release 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

from confinement. While his mandamus petition was pending, on January 22, 2015, the 

District Court entered an opinion and an order that denied habeas relief on Williams’ 

remaining claims and dismissed his § 2254 petition with prejudice. 

Because the District Court has now resolved Williams’ remaining claims, as he 

requested, his mandamus petition must be dismissed as moot to the extent it was 

predicated on delay by the District Court. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 

F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996). To the extent that Williams also asked this Court to 

grant him substantive relief, such a request is denied, as it should be properly asserted in 

an appeal. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting 

that “mandamus is not a substitute for appeal”).

Accordingly, for the reasons given, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of 

mandamus in part and deny it in part.
#### OPPENHEIM, Respondent, v. TRUST CO. OF THE REPUBLIC, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Robert Oppenheim against the Trust Company of the Republic.

A. B. Cruikshank, for appellant.

H. Van Sinderen, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2349
NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDIMITRA J. CURRY; GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company & Affiliated Companies; CHRISTOPHER W. BOGART, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-907) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Lance Robey, ROBEY & TEUMER, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appellees' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Appellant's motion to reconsider. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 1993 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and denyAppellant's motion to compel Appellees to respond to interrogatories. Bogart v. Curry , No. CA-97-907 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13 & Sept. 8, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

David Joel Dean , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00020

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No.

2027868 ). Memorandum Opinio n delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating

. As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment and the bill of

costs by deleting the time payment fee. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, David Joel Dean , has adequately indicated his inability to pay

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 7, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
1032.770-6 Procedures. ( a ) An incrementally funded fixed-price, time-and-materials or labor-hour contract shall be fully funded once funds are available.
( b ) The contracting officer shall ensure that sufficient funds are allotted to the contract to cover the total amount payable to the contractor in the event of termination of convenience by the Government.
( c ) Upon receipt of the contractor's notice under paragraph (c) of the clause at 1052.232-90, Limitation of Government's Obligation, the contracting officer shall promptly provide written notice to the contractor that the Government is— ( i ) Obligating additional funds for continued performance and increasing the Government's limitation of obligation in a specified amount;
( ii ) Obligating the full amount of funds needed;
( iii ) Terminating for convenience, as applicable, the affected line items or contract; or
( iv ) Considering whether to allot additional funds; and ( A ) The contractor is entitled by the contract terms to stop work when the Government's limitation of obligation is reached; and
( B ) Any costs expended beyond the Government's limitation of obligation are at the contractor's risk.
( d ) Upon learning that the contract will receive no further funds by the date provided in the notice under paragraph (c) of the clause at 1052.232-70, Limitation of Government's Obligation, the contracting officer shall promptly give the contractor written notice of the Government's decision and terminate the affected line items or contract, as applicable, for the convenience of the Government.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. COLLINS et al. v. BROWER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 19, 1906.)

Rewards—Offer—By Public Authorities.

A resolution of a county board of supervisors, offering a reward for information or evidence to secure the conviction of persons guilty of crimes committed prior to its passage, and not providing for the payment of rewards for convictions of offenses subsequently committed, was invalid, and not binding on the county.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 42, Cent. Dig. Rewards, § 6.]

Hooker, J., dissenting.

Certiorari by the people, on the relation of William Collins and another, to review a determination of Girdell v. Brower and others, constituting the board of supervisors of the county of Nassau, in disallowing a claim of relators. Determination confirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, HOOKER, RICH, and" MILDER, JJ. ' -

George W. McKenzie, for relators. •

.Halstead Scudder, for respondents. • ,

PER CURIAM.

Determination confirmed,., with, .costs, on the ground that the reward was offered to persons furnishing information *350or evidence to s'ectlre the conviction of persons guilty of crimes committed prior to its passage, and did not provide for the.payment of rewards for convictiori of offenses subsequently coriimitted.

HOOKER, J., reads for reversal.

HOOKER, J.

(dissenting). The board of supervisors of the county of Nassau audited and refused to allow a claim of the relators’ against the county for the sum of $1,000, offered by a resolution of the board of supervisors adopted on the 13th day of September, 1901, to the person or persons furnishing to the district attorney information or evidence, which would secure the arrest and conviction of the horse thieves, who had been operating in that county. The relators showed themselves entitled to the reward, but the board refused to allow the claim, for the reason that there was no authority in law'for the payment thereof. The question presented, therefore, is whether the board of supervisors by its resolution had legal power to bind the county to the payment of the reward. This question was presented for the determination of this court in Miller v. County of Nassau, 80 App. Div. 641, 81 N. Y. Supp. 1136, where the defendant appealed from a judgment, which the plaintiffs had against it upon a claim for similar services under the same resolution of the board of supervisors as that contained in the record now before us.

The affirmance of the judgment in that case has committed this court to a doctrine contrary to that now urged by the respondents, and their determination should be reversed, with costs.
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

August 17, 2020

Honorable Kitlang Kabua 

Minister of Education, Sports, and Training 

P.O. Box 3 

Majuro, Marshall Islands 96960 

kabua.kitlang@gmail.com 

Dear Minister Kabua: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act for 

grant award H027A180011. 

The Department received your August, 6 2020 request on behalf of the Republic of the Marshall

Islands Ministry of Education, Sports and Training for a waiver extending the period of 

availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State Lead, Lucille Sleger, at 

Lucille.Sleger@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

cc: State Director
November 25, 2015
#### 1845.7101 Instructions for preparing NASA Form 1018.

NASA must account for and report assets in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3512 and 31 U.S.C. 3515, Federal Accounting Standards, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructions. Since contractors maintain NASA's official records for its assets in their possession, NASA must obtain periodic data from those records to meet these requirements. Changes in Federal Accounting Standards and OMB reporting requirements may occur from year to year, requiring contractor submission of supplemental information with the NASA Form (NF) 1018. The specific Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) to be used for property records are SFFAS No. 3 “Accounting for Inventory and Related Property”, SFFAS No. 6 “Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment”, SFFAS No. 10 “Accounting for Internal Use Software”, and SFFAS No. 11 “Amendments to PP&E: Definitions” issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Classifications of property, related costs to be reported, and other reporting requirements are discussed in this subpart. NF 1018 (see 1853.3) provides critical information for NASA financial statements and property management. Accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the report are critical to many aspects of NASA's operations.

[68 FR 62024, Oct. 31, 2003]
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of the Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Michael S. Sarner, Chief Financial Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:


1. The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2022 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation.


Date:  February 1, 2022By:/s/ Michael S. SarnerMichael S. SarnerChief Financial Officer
November 21, 1974.

M. P. No. 74-176.

#### The Constitutional Right To Life Committee *et al. v.*Joseph E. Cannon *et al.*

*Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Ltd., Francis J. Boyle, Joseph R. Palumbo, Jr.,*for petitioners. *Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *W. Slater Allen, Jr.,*Asst. Attorney General, for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise the issue presented herein at the time of hearing on the appeal.
#### 215.406 Documentation.
Department of Education - Public Hearing

Johnson C. Smith University - October 6, 2008

Name Organization

1 Anderson, Cynthia Johnson C. Smith University

2 Arthur, Jeff ECPI College of Technology & Career College Association

3 Avent, Sherri North Carolina A&T State University

4 Cameron, William University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

5 Hall, Marlene University of North Carolina - Charlotte 

6 Harrison, David University of North Carolina - Legal Affairs

7 Henderson, Jack Brookstone College of Business

8 Jenerette, Kim University of South Carolina - Upstate

9 Kessler, Jim University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

10 Laurence, Melody Southwestern Community College

11 Oliver, Sharon North Carolina Central University

12 Spiers, Bill Tallahassee Community College

13 Stephens, Antonio St. Augusta College, North Carolina Federal TRIO Programs, & North 

Carolina Council for the Educational Opportunity Programs

14 Stovall, Bob Merit Network

15 Trowlbridge, Meghan University of South Carolina

16 Wheelan, Belle Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

17 White, Guin United Piedmont Center for Education Excellence

18 Williams, Andrea College of the Albemarle & North Carolina Council for the Educational 

Opportunity Programs

19 Zahn, Bill University of North Carolina - Greensboro

Office of Postsecondary Education
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JEFF FOSTER ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PNC BANK NA ,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 12-cv-03130

Judge Mary M. Rowland 

PARTIAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of.

and against 

in the amount of $,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s)

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant PNC Bank N.A. and against Plaintiff Foster on 

Foster’s claims as to the Florida Loan, and judgment is entered in favor of Counter-plaintiff PNC Bank N.A. 

and against Counter-defendant Foster on PNC’s counterclaim for judgment on the Florida Loan in the amount 

of $1,412,242.85.

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge Mary M. Rowland presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge Mary M. Rowland without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Mary M. Rowland on a motion for summary judgment.

Date: 3/25/2020 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Dawn A. Moreno, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-03130 Document #: 179 Filed: 03/25/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4075
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

ADAM GRAY #B-77079, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1743

)

JOSEPH YURKOVICH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Nearly 15 years after Adam Gray (“Gray”) was convicted of

aggravated arson and two counts of first degree murder on which

he is serving a sentence of natural life in prison, the

“Exoneration Project” of the University of Chicago Law School,

with two lawyers from Jenner & Block teaming up with law

students, has filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Petition”). This Court’s threshold review of that

filing, as called for by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, unsurprisingly

suggests that part or all of the Petition may be barred by

limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)--indeed, was perhaps

time-barred even before any tolling kicked in under 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(2) by reason of Gray’s filing of his first state postconviction petition.1

 Gray has most recently filed a third such state petition, 1

which has not yet been ruled upon. In that respect his counsel

have filed a motion to stay and abey the Petition to allow him to

exhaust his state court remedies.
Accordingly this Court orders an initial status hearing for

9:15 a.m. March 20, 2012 to discuss the timeliness issue. It 2

should then be in a better position to determine what further

proceedings are appropriate.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 12, 2012

 Although Gray’s counsel have previously designated a 2

March 28 presentment date, it seems to make good sense to address

the limitations question at the earliest possible date.

2
Exhibit 32(b)








CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark F. Mulhern, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/ Mark F.
Mulhern


Mark F.
Mulhern


Senior
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


May 8,
2009








This
certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Exhibit
      32(a)








**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Progress Energy, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. McGehee,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/
      Robert B. McGehee


Robert
      B.
      McGehee


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer


November 3,
      2006








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Karen L. Manczak, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07987

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Global Client Solutions, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 16, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman:Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss

pursuant to settlement agreement [47] is granted. Plaintiffs' claims against Global Client

Solutions, LLC, and Global Holdings, LLC, are dismissed with prejudice, with each side

bearing its own costs. Plaintiffs' claims against Does 1−10 are dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff's amended preliminary motion to certify class [12] is denied without

prejudice as moot. The disposition of Plaintiffs' claims has no impact, one way or

the other, on the alleged claims of any members of the putative class. Status hearing

scheduled for 4/24/2012 [46] is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.(jlj)

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-07987 Document #: 48 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:155
#### Kathleen Gonzalez, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Rita Porto, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[832 NYS2d 436]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered March 14, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for an order to strike defendants’ answer for allegedly spoliating evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to strike defendants’ answer where plaintiff failed to establish that defendants had willfully or contumaciously destroyed records in an effort to frustrate discovery *(see Rosen v Corvalon,*309 AD2d 723 [2003]), or that the missing records constituted crucial evidence without which she would be unable to establish a prima facie case *(see Tawedros v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y.,*281 AD2d 184 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.