alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCPW-20-0000276
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
IN RE HAROLD HARSHMAN, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Harold Harshman’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on April 7, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that, under the standard by which this court reviews a petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief from this court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000276 15-MAY-2020 02:55 PMIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

FINALLY, IT IS HEREBY ALSO ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall forward a copy of the petition to the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai # i (adoption records and/or legal research division) to provide assistance to petitioner, as appropriate.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 15, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JEAN ZEDLITZ; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16477

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01803-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016** 

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

William J. Whitsitt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional claims arising from a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

FILED

SEP 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Whitsitt’s motion

for relief from judgment, filed on July 1, 2014, because Whitsitt failed to

demonstrate any basis for relief not previously urged. See id. at 1263 (setting forth

grounds for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

To the extent that Whitsitt challenges the district court’s prior orders entered

following remand by this court, we lack jurisdiction because Whitsitt did not file a

timely notice of appeal after the district court entered judgment on July 19, 2013,

or after the district court denied Whitsitt’s earlier motion for relief from judgment

on October 7, 2013. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed

within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from);

Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703

(9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional

requirement.”).

Contrary to Whitsitt’s contention that he was labeled a vexatious litigant, the

record does not indicate that a vexatious litigant order has been entered against

him.

We reject as without merit Whitsitt’s contentions regarding bias.

2 14-16477
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 14-16477
#### § 182.620 Cooperative agreement.

Cooperative agreement means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition of grant in § 182.650), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award. The term does not include cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         219,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,858
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 470,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          215,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,187
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   470,070
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (132,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (132,154)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (132,154)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (132,154)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### Magic T. Smith *et al. v.*The City of Chicago.

*Opinion filed February 20, 1901.*

This case is controlled by the decision in *Willis v. City of Chicago, {ante,*p. 103.)

Writ op Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin 1ST. Carter, Judge, presiding.

William F. Carroll, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, and Denis E. Sullivan, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam:

A judgment by default confirming a special assessment was entered by the county court of Cook county ag'ainst the property of plaintiffs in error to pay the cost of curbing with combined curb and gutter, and paving with asphalt, Addison avenue and other streets. The error pointed out is, that the ordinance does not sufficiently specify the nature, character and description of the improvement. The description of the combined curb and gutter is defective in precisely the same respects as the ordinance mentioned in *Willis*v. *City of Chicago, {ante,*p. 103).

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Income Properties IV;
 1.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this 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
report;
 3.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 14, 2007
    /s/ Steven L. BrakeSteven L. BrakeTreasurer
#### Louis V. Albini et al., Respondents, v. Joseph Stanco, as Building Inspector of the City of Glen Cove, et al., Appellants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 30, 1968, affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at Special Term. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
2007-1910.

#### Hylant Group, Inc. v. Locker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 90289. On motion for immediate stay of permanent injunction. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion subject to an appropriate bond.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.21 Hazard identification and assessment. ( a ) Contractors must establish procedures to identify existing and potential workplace hazards and assess the risk of associated workers injury and illness. Procedures must include methods to: ( 1 ) Assess worker exposure to chemical, physical, biological, or safety workplace hazards through appropriate workplace monitoring;
( 2 ) Document assessment for chemical, physical, biological, and safety workplace hazards using recognized exposure assessment and testing methodologies and using of accredited and certified laboratories;
( 3 ) Record observations, testing and monitoring results;
( 4 ) Analyze designs of new facilities and modifications to existing facilities and equipment for potential workplace hazards;
( 5 ) Evaluate operations, procedures, and facilities to identify workplace hazards;
( 6 ) Perform routine job activity-level hazard analyses;
( 7 ) Review site safety and health experience information; and
( 8 ) Consider interaction between workplace hazards and other hazards such as radiological hazards.
( b ) Contractors must submit to the Head of DOE Field Element a list of closure facility hazards and the established controls within 90 days after identifying such hazards. The Head of DOE Field Element, with concurrence by the Cognizant Secretarial Officer, has 90 days to accept the closure facility hazard controls or direct additional actions to either: ( 1 ) Achieve technical compliance; or
( 2 ) Provide additional controls to protect the workers.
( c ) Contractors must perform the activities identified in paragraph (a) of this section, initially to obtain baseline information and as often thereafter as necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements in this Subpart.
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:55 PM Subject: Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Documents for Commercial Ice Makers (ACIM) Energy Conservation Standards (ECS) [RIN 1904

– AC39, Docket No. EERE

– 2010

– BT

– STD

– 0037]



### The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, 02/16/2012, to discuss and receive comments on the Preliminary Technical Support Documents for Commercial Ice Makers (ACIM) Energy Conservation Standards (ECS). [RIN 1904

– AC39, D ocket No. EERE

– 2010

– BT

– STD

– 0037]

DOE will be proposing at the public meeting, for public comment and discussion, the following as part of the ACIM Preliminary Analysis ECS : equipment classes that DOE plans to analyze for establishing energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers; the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE is using to evaluate standards for this equipment; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE for this equipment; the potential energy conservatio n standard levels derived from these analyses that DOE could consider for this equipment; and any other issues relevant to the development of energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers.

For additional details of this ACIM ECS public meeting please go to the following EERE website:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial /automatic_ice_making_equi pment.html



### Regards,



# Charles Llenza Project Manager/Engineer US Department of Energy (202)586

- 2192(work) (202)287

- 1590(fax) Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov

**CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE**

***********************************************************************************************

**THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMES ABOVE. IF THE**  **READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE**  **TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBIT**  **ED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON**

**- PUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION**  **ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER OF THE SENDER OR INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED UNDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING OR DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF**  **TH E FEDERAL GRAMM** 

**- LEACH** 

**- BAILEY ACT.**  **IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN OR DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO**  **ASSURE THAT IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, OR DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.**
#### § 1500.6 Fixed Amount Awards.

In the EPA, programs awarding fixed amount awards will do so in accordance with guidance issued from the Office of Grants and Debarment. (See 2 CFR 200.201(b)).

[79 FR 76050, Dec. 19, 2014. Redesignated at 85 FR 61573, Sept. 30, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         104,243
<SECURITIES>                                       808
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,859
<PP&E>                                       3,011,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 895,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,247,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,688
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,088,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,247,851
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,899
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MONA LISA GAFFNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-97-179; CA-05-159)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 23, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mona Lisa Gaffney, Appellant Pro Se. Justin W. Williams, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mona Lisa Gaffney seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Gaffney has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 780.31 Contents of application. Each application shall contain, in addition to the requirements specified in § 780.5, the following information: ( a ) The activities in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy to which applicant proposes to apply the patent license;
( b ) The nature and purpose of the applicant's intended use of the patent license;
( c ) The relationship of the invention or discovery to the authorized activities to which it is to be applied, including an estimate of the effect on such activities stemming from the grant or denial of the license;
( d ) Efforts made by the applicant to obtain a patent license from the owner of the patent;
( e ) Terms, if any, on which the owner of the patent proposes to grant the applicant a patent license;
( f ) The terms the applicant proposes for the patent license; and
( g ) A request for either a hearing or a decision on the record.
#### KAUFMAN COSTUME CO. v. KAUFMAN GOWN CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Action by the Kaufman Costume Company against the Kaufman Gown Company.

No. opinion. Motion granted; question certified; order filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1089.
§ 1120.100 Purpose of the award cover pages. The award cover pages comprise the portion of each DoD Component award of a grant or cooperative agreement or modification to an award that the DoD Component transmits to the recipient when it makes the award or modification. It: ( a ) Contains basic information about the award or modification and the recipient, as described in § 1120.105;
( b ) Is signed by a DoD grants officer; and
( c ) Also is signed by the recipient's authorized organizational representative if the award or modification is a bilateral action that is to be signed on behalf of both the DoD Component and recipient.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 885 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 885

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 22, 2006.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 5638) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified 
credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000 and to 
repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and 
for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The amendment printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```