alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6915

IN RE: SHAHBORN EMMANUEL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CR-97-288) Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shahborn Emmanuel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Shahborn Emmanuel seeks a writ of mandamus remanding his case to the district court for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Emmanuel fails to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Emmanuel’s petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
§ 1737.71 Interest rate to be considered for the purpose of assessing feasibility for loans. ( a ) For purposes of determining the creditworthiness of a borrower for RUS cost-of-money, the Administrator shall assume that the loan, if made, would bear interest at the Treasury rate on the date of determination as described in paragraph (b) of this section. If the Treasury rate exceeds 7 percent, the interest rate used to determine eligibility for the RUS cost-of-money loan will be 7 percent.
( b ) The 30-year Treasury rate will be used in all feasibility studies for loans with a final maturity of at least 30 years. A straight-line interpolation between other Treasury rates will be used to determine the rate used in feasibility studies for loans with final maturities of less than 30 years.
( c ) The Treasury rate will be obtained each Tuesday, or as soon as possible thereafter, from the Federal Reserve. The rate for the current week, from the column labeled “This week” in the Federal Reserve statistical release, will be used from that Wednesday through the following Tuesday.
( d ) As used in this section, the “date of determination” means the date of the feasibility study used in support of the loan recommendation.
[58 FR 66257, Dec. 20, 1993, as amended at 84 FR 59922, Nov. 7, 2019]
§ 1735.80 Submission of data. When a borrower is not requesting loan funds for an acquisition or merger, the borrower shall first notify RUS and submit for review by RUS the documents and information listed in (a) through (l) of this section required by RUS. ( a ) For any nonborrowers involved, their most recent balance sheets, operating statements, detail of plant accounts, reports to the state commission, and audits, if available.
( b ) Completed RUS Form 507, “Report on Telephone Acquisition.”
( c ) A map (such as a road map) showing county lines, the boundaries of the proposed acquisition and the borrower's existing service territory, and the names of other telephone companies serving adjoining areas.
( d ) A brief statement of the plans for incorporating the acquired facilities into the borrower's existing system.
( e ) The number of subscribers currently receiving service in the areas involved in the acquisition or merger and the number of new subscribers that will be served over the next 5 years as a result of the acquisition or merger.
( f ) Copies of deeds of real estate to be acquired, with an explanation of the proposed use of the land.
( g ) Copies of security documents of any other lenders involved and any contracts or other rights of obligations to be assumed by the survivor.
( h ) A list of all counties in which the proposed system will have facilities.
( i ) If Article II, section 4(b) of the standard mortgage has not been made applicable, plans for operating the unified system.
( j ) In the case of a merger, the proposed articles of merger that are to be used.
( k ) In the case of an acquisition, the proposed purchase price, plus two copies of any options, bills of sale, or deeds, and two copies of any acquisition agreements. All of these documents are subject to RUS approval. If the acquisition agreement is approved by RUS, two copies of it shall be returned to the borrower.
( l ) Any other data deemed necessary by the Administrator for an evaluation of the acquisition or merger.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0084) [54 FR 14626, Apr. 12, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990]
#### § 1709.6 Appeals.

An applicant may appeal a decision by the Assistant Administrator, Electric Program rejecting an application for failure to meet eligibility requirements. Applicants may not appeal rating panel scores or rankings. An appeal must be made, in writing to the Administrator, within 10 days after the applicant is notified of the determination to reject the application. Appeals must state the basis for the appeal and shall be submitted to the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1500, Washington, DC 20250-1500. Thereafter, the Administrator will review the appeal to determine whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the original determination. The Administrator's determination shall be final. A written copy of the Administrator's decision will be furnished promptly to the applicant.
#### § 15f.6 What must I say or include in my Section 741 Complaint Request?

If you must file a Section 741 Complaint Request, it should include a copy of your original complaint, a request in writing that USDA consider the complaint in accordance with these procedures, a statement as to when your complaint was filed with USDA, and any other evidence you consider necessary to prove that your complaint is an eligible complaint suitable for consideration under these procedures.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

s0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140706 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140706 

 COA: 286964 

MAURICE CLIMMIE JACKSON, Wayne CC 07-012175-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY JONES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CHEN, Correctional Medical Doctor,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 16653

D.C. No. 1:11

- cv

- 01762

- MJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted January 18, 2017 ** *

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jeremy Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a

jury verdict in favor of defendant in Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

wit hout oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Jones’s request

for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply brief s , is denied. 

# FILED

JAN 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 16653

retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the

district court’s evidentiary rulings and reverse only when an erroneous evidentiary

ruling is prejudicial. Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 528 F.3d 1166, 1171

- 72

(9th Cir. 2008)

. We affirm.

The district court excluded the documen t that Jones sought to use only for

impeachment on the basis that it had not been disclosed previously. However,

“impeachment evidence does not have to be revealed in pretrial disclosures

. ” Id. ;

see also Fe d. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) (requiring disclosure of documents used to

support claims or defenses, unless use would be solely for impeachment)

.

Nevertheless

, the erroneous evidentiary ruling does not warrant reversal because

the jury’s verdict on each of Jones’s claims was supported by evidence other than

defendant’s unimpeached testimony. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles , 533 F.3d

1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversal requires an abuse of discretion and prejudice);

Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc. , 244 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir . 2001)

(prejudice requires conclusion that “more probably than not,” the error tainted the

verdict).

AFFIRMED.
FILED

July 30, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE 

 JUNE 1997 SESSION

ERNEST LAWSON, )

)

Appellant, ) No. 03C01-9608-CR-00295

 )

) McMinn County

v. ) 

) Honorable Mayo L. Mashburn, Judge 

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction)

) 

Appellee. )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

Ernest Lawson, Pro Se Charles W. Burson

No. 131676 Attorney General of Tennessee

W.T.H.S.F., P.O. Box 1050 and

Henning, TN 38041 Janis L. Turner

Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee 

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Jerry N. Estes

District Attorney General

203 E. Madison Avenue

P.O. Box 647

Athens, TN 37371

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

Joseph M. Tipton

Judge
1

 A com parison of the petition and the direct appeal opinion of this court reflects that all of 

 the claims were, in fact, determined in that appeal.

2

O P I N I O N

The petitioner, Ernest Lawson, has appealed the McMinn County Criminal

Court denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction case relative to his 1990

conviction for facilitation to commit first degree murder. The trial court denied the

motion because it was untimely, the ground raised had been waived, and the ground

was not entitled to relief. The petitioner contends that his motion was timely, that he

was entitled to the appointment of counsel, and that his claim of an improper

reasonable doubt instruction has merit under Rickman v. Dutton, 864 F. Supp. 686

(M.D. Tenn. 1994). We affirm the trial court.

The defendant’s original conviction became final after his direct appeal. 

See State v. Hicks, 835 S.W.2d 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992), app. denied (June 8,

1992). He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 26, 1995, that was treated

as one for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition in February 1996

without a hearing, or the appointment of counsel on the basis that each claim for relief

had been previously determined in the direct appeal.1 

On April 2, 1996, the petitioner filed the instant motion to reopen in which

he alleged that the jury instruction relating to reasonable doubt was unconstitutional.

However, he does not explain why he did not bring this same claim in his former case. 

This constitutes a waiver. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202(e) (Supp. 1996). In any event, his

substantive complaint is without merit. He complains that the reasonable doubt

instruction in his case included the term “moral certainty” in such a way as to violate

due process, a conclusion reached by the federal district court in Rickman. However,

the instruction used in the petitioner’s case is essentially the same one held to be
3

proper by our supreme court and this court. See State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 734

(Tenn. 1994); Pettyjohn v. State, 885 S.W.2d 364, 365-66 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

Thus, there is no merit to the petitioner’s claim. The judgment of the trial

court is affirmed. 

________________________________

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge

CONCUR:

____________________________

John H. Peay, Judge

____________________________

Curwood Witt, Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. Shook, Executive Vice President, Treasurer 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) 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: August 2, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ Kevin M. Shook                                             
|                     |  |  |  | Kevin M. Shook                                                 
|                     |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
VICTOR BOCCHECIAMPOLIVO,

Appellant,

v.

SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC 

SCHOOLS and FLORIDA

SCHOOL BOARD INSURANCE 

TRUST,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0309

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 17, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Neal P. Pitts, Judge.

Date of Accident: April 14, 2015.

Nicholas A. Shannin of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Michael Peterson of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 15a.515 Compensation. A recipient shall not make or enforce any policy or practice that, on the basis of sex: ( a ) Makes distinctions in rates of pay or other compensation;
( b ) Results in the payment of wages to employees of one sex at a rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
#### WEDDIGAN et al., Respondents, v. WHITING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Frank A. Weddigan and another against William F. Whiting.

PER CURIAM..

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

WILLIAMS, J., dissents.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Colon, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on February 24, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Carro, JJ.
#### Harry M. Stern et al., appellants, v. Louis Fishman and Herman Fidler, appellees.

Gen. No. 33,623.

Opinion filed December 31, 1929.

Woods, Bishop & Cohen, for appellants; John E. Foster, of counsel. Gallagher, Shulman & Abrams, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                    ------


                                    FORM 8-K


                                 CURRENT REPORT



                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 22, 1997


                       NL INDUSTRIES, INC.
        (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)



New Jersey                   1-640                    13-5267260
(State or other       (Commission File No.)     (Employer ID No.)
jurisdiction of
incorporation)



16825 Northchase Dr., Suite 1200, Houston, Texas             77060
(Address of principal executive offices)                  (Zip Code)



Registrant's telephone number, including area code   (281) 423-3300


                          Not Applicable
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)







<PAGE>


Item 5.     Other Events.


      On April 22, 1997, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto
as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.




Item 7.     Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and
            Exhibits.


      (c)   Exhibits

            (i)   Exhibit 99.1.     Press Release dated April 22, 1997.



                        *      *      *      *      *




                                    SIGNATURE



      Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                                          NL INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                          (Registrant)



                                          /s/ Dennis G. Newkirk
                                          Dennis G. Newkirk
                                          Vice President & Controller







Dated: April 25, 1997



<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.9

                        THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
                             William Francis Galvin
                          Secretary of the Commonwealth
              ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108-1512

                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                    (General Laws, Chapter 156B, Section 6A)




1.   Exact name of corporation: Luxtec Corporation

2.   Document to be corrected: Articles of Amendment

3.   The above  mentioned  document  was filed  with the  Secretary  of the
     Commonwealth on September 19, 1996.

4.   Please state the inaccuracy or defect in said document:

5.   Justin P.  Morreale,  one of the  officers of Luxtec  Corporation  who
     signed the Articles of Amendment on behalf of Luxtec,  was referred to
     as the Clerk of the corporation.

6.   Please state corrected version of the document:

     Justin  P.  Morreale  is  actually  the  Assistant   Clerk  of  Luxtec
     Corporation.




Note: This correction should be signed by the person(s) required by law to sign
      the original document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, this 4th day of October, 1996,


                                                      *Vice President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      *Clerk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Delete the inapplicable words.

Note:    If the  accuracy of defect to be  corrected is not apparent on the face
         of the document,  minutes of the meeting  substantiating the error must
         be filed with the certificate.  Additional  information may be provided
         on  separate 8 1/2 x 11" sheets of white paper with a left margin of at
         least 1 inch.
Exhibit 32.2





PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly report of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan Ginsberg, Principal 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) 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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: November 9, 2010





/s/ Alan Ginsberg


Alan Ginsberg


Principal Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 6, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00390

- CR

Rebecca Fayelayne NELSON,

Appellant

v.

T he STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5543

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file their brief is GRANTED. The

appellant ’ s brief is due on or before January 4, 2016

. No further extensions of time will be

granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of November, 201 5

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 10(a)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-05606) and in
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-12716) of Waterford Wedgwood plc of our report dated June 4, 2003, except for Note 33, as to
which the date is September 22, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements and our report dated June 4, 2003 on the financial statement schedule, which appear in this
Form 20-F.

PricewaterhouseCoopersChartered Accountants
Dublin, Republic of Ireland

October 1,
2003

110

---

QuickLinks
#### § 15b.20 Applicability.

Except as otherwise noted, this subpart applies to public and private schools, elementary, secondary, adult, and extension education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture after the effective date of this part and to recipients that operate, or that receive Federal financial assistance for the operation of, such programs or activities.

[47 FR 25470, June 11, 1982, as amended at 55 FR 52139, Dec. 19, 1990; 68 FR 51343, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### § 1703.300 Purpose.

This subpart H sets forth RUS' policies and procedures for making loan deferments of principal and interest payments on direct loans or insured loans made for electric or telephone purposes, but not for loans made for rural economic development purposes, in accordance with subsection (b) of section 12 of the RE Act. Loan deferments are provided for the purpose of promoting rural development opportunities.

[82 FR 55925, Nov. 27, 2017]