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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1595

In Re: RANDY DRUMMOND,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:07-cv-03031-TLW)

Submitted: September 21, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Drummond, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randy Drummond petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to allow him to file an application for a certificate of appealability of the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We previously denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Drummond’s appeal as to both orders. We conclude that Drummond

is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The relief sought by Drummond is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny Drummond’s motion to compel answer. 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
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of M. B. 

Appellate case number: 01-20-00003-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-00243J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

This Court has a duty to consider its appellate jurisdiction. Appellant appeals from an order 

striking her pleading. Neither party’s brief addresses the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to 

review this order at this stage of the litigation. 

The parties are instructed to be prepared to discuss jurisdiction at oral argument on January 

13. Specifically, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the order is a final judgment, 

whether there is a statutory basis for immediate review of the order if it is interlocutory, and 

whether the current status of the litigation possibly moots the inquiry in any event.

The parties should expect to address the merits of the appeal and related legal arguments 

in addition to the jurisdictional question.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sarah Beth Landau

Acting individually 

Date: January 8, 2021
# C_2006121EN.01000601.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/6

---

Action brought on 15 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-141/06)

(2006/C 121/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and J.R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, having failed to adopt, in relation to financial services other than private insurance, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC (2) and Directives 97/7/EC (3) and 98/27/EC (4), and, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission of them, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, having failed to adopt, in relation to financial services other than private insurance, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC (2) and Directives 97/7/EC (3) and 98/27/EC (4), and, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission of them, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

2

3

4

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2002/65/EC into national law expired on 9 October 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 271, p. 16

1

(2)  OJ L 330, p. 50

2

(3)  OJ L 144, p. 19

3

(4)  OJ L 166, p. 51

4

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 332

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for transportation by

the Department of Defense of certain children requiring specialized medical services in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for transportation by the Department of Defense of certain children requiring specialized medical services in the United

States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN CHILDREN

4 WITH DISABILITIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 157 of title 10, United

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow7 ing new section:
2

•HR 332 IH

1 ‘‘§ 2643. Certain disabled children in Pacific Rim re2 gion: transportation to Hawaii for medi3 cal care

4 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—Subject to subsection (c), the Sec5 retary of Defense may provide persons described in sub6 section (b) with round-trip transportation on a space7 available basis from an airport in a country or other entity

8 in the Pacific Rim region to the State of Hawaii. Such

9 transportation shall be provided without charge.

10 ‘‘(b) PERSONS COVERED.—Persons eligible to be pro11 vided transportation under this section are—

12 ‘‘(1) minor children residing in the Pacific Rim

13 region who (A) have been admitted for necessary

14 medical treatment at a medical facility in Honolulu,

15 Hawaii, that specializes in the care of crippled chil16 dren at no cost to the patient, but (B) are unable

17 to afford the costs of transportation to Hawaii; and

18 ‘‘(2) in the case of any such child, one adult at19 tendant.

20 ‘‘(c) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may provide

21 transportation under subsection (a) in any case only if the

22 Secretary determines that—

23 ‘‘(1) the provision of that transportation is not

24 inconsistent with the foreign policy of the United

25 States;
3

•HR 332 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the child to be provided the transportation

2 is in condition of health adequate for safe travel;

3 ‘‘(3) the transportation is for humanitarian

4 purposes; and

5 ‘‘(4) adequate arrangements have been made

6 with sending and receiving entities before the provi7 sion of such transportation at the location of depar8 ture and arrival.’’.

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

10 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding

11 at the end the following new item:

‘‘2643. Certain disabled children in Pacific Rim region: transportation to Hawaii

for medical care.’’.

Æ
# C_2006135EN.01001402.xml

| 9.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4055 — Talanx/Gerling)

(2006/C 135/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 5 April 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4055. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4055. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1445 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-612 44-CV- JIC FRA NK R. ZO KA IT ES , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant , ve rs us BALISTRERI REALTY, INC., LU C G AU TH IE R , D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 18, 200 8) Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S and BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Fr an k Z oka ite s a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti on t o am en d j udgm en t t o a dd p re

j udgm en t i nte re st. Z oka ite s c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the m oti on b ec au se he is en tit le d to pr ej udgm en t i nte re st unde r Fl or ida law. A fter r eviewing the rec ord and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the district
co urt’ s w el l- re as one d or de r of Augus t 23 , 200 7, and a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt. AFFIRMED.
I:\MEPC\53\2-12-corr.1.doc 

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are 

kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 

COMMITTEE 

53rd session 

Agenda item 2 

MEPC 53/2/12/Corr.1

 27 May 2005

 Original: ENGLISH 

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 

Application for approval of an Active Substance for Ballast Water Management 

Submitted by Germany 

Corrigendum 

1 In document MEPC 53/2/12, the existing second sub-title is replaced by the following: 

Submitted by Germany and by Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden 

and the United Kingdom, as well as by the European Commission

2 In paragraph 4, first line, the words “and co-sponsors” are added after “Germany”. It 

should now read as: 

 “Germany and co-sponsors therefore submit ...” 

__________
#### § 405.815 Submission of claims.

A provider or supplier succeeding in having its enrollment application denial or billing privileges revocation reversed in a binding decision, or in having its billing privileges reinstated, may submit claims to the CMS contractor for services furnished during periods of Medicare qualification, subject to the limitations in § 424.44 of this chapter, regarding the timely filing of claims. If the claims previously were filed timely but were rejected, they are considered filed timely upon resubmission. Previously denied claims for items or services furnished during a period of denial or revocation may be resubmitted to CMS within 1 year after the date of reinstatement or reversal.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.2610 Hearing official review. ( a ) *Time for filing a request.* A MA organization must file with CMS a request for a hearing official review within 30 calendar days from the date of the independent reviewer's issuance of a reconsideration determination.
( b ) *Content of the request.* ( 1 ) The request must be in writing and must specify the findings or issues in the reconsideration decision with which the MA organization disagrees and the reasons for the disagreements.
( 2 ) The MA organization must submit with its request all supporting documentation, evidence, and substantiation that it wants to be considered.
( 3 ) No new evidence may be submitted.
( 4 ) Documentation, evidence, or substantiation submitted after the filing of the request will not be considered.
( c ) *CMS rebuttal.* CMS may file a rebuttal to the MA organization's hearing official review request. ( 1 ) The rebuttal must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the MA organization's submission of its hearing official review request.
( 2 ) CMS sends its rebuttal to the MA organization at the same time it is submitted to the hearing official.
( d ) *Conducting a review.* A CMS-designated hearing official conducts the hearing on the record. ( 1 ) The hearing is not to be conducted live or via telephone unless the hearing official, in his or her sole discretion, requests a live or telephonic hearing.
( 2 ) In all cases, the hearing official's review is limited to information that meets one or more of the following: ( i ) The Part C RAC used in making its determinations.
( ii ) The independent reviewer used in making its determinations.
( iii ) The MA organization submits with its hearing request.
( iv ) CMS submits in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( 3 ) Neither the MA organization nor CMS may submit new evidence.
( e ) *Hearing official decision.* The CMS hearing official decides the case within 60 days and sends a written decision to the MA organization and CMS, explaining the basis for the decision.
( f ) *Effect of hearing official decision.* The hearing official's decision is final and binding, unless the decision is reversed or modified by the CMS Administrator in accordance with § 422.2615.
#### § 417.930 Initial costs of operation.

Under section 1305 of the PHS, loans and loan guarantees were awarded for initial costs of operation of HMOs.

[58 FR 38077, July 15, 1993]
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 28 , 2015 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 15
- 00846
- CV IN RE FORUM STUDIO, INC., AND CLAYCO, IN C. , Relator Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 02018 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Brown Opinion by Justice Brown Relators filed this petition for writ of ma ndamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to rule, prior to the arbitration of this case, on relators’ motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a re lator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relators have failed to establis h their right to mandamus relief.

150846F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEFRIN DENNIS, a/k/a Dizzy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-98-48)

Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Marshall Courtright, COLLINS & COURTRIGHT, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney,

Lisa A. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Defrin Dennis appeals his sentence of 87 months imprisonment

imposed after his plea of guilty to distributing cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994). Dennis claims on appeal

that the district court erred by denying him a two-level decrease

in his base offense level under the safety valve provision of the

guidelines and that the court erred in calculating the amount of

cocaine base attributable to him as relevant conduct under the

guidelines. However, we do not find that the district court

clearly erred on either issue. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence. 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
HomeFunding Opportunity Announcements...FY 2021 Request for Concept Notes for Humanitarian Research

# 									FY 2021 Request for Concept Notes for Humanitarian Research							

Funding Opportunity Announcement

February 17, 2021

						Download Notice												[590 KB]

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Back to Top
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01412**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 01412\01412_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 01412\01412_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01412\01412_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 01412\01412_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook 

### x 01412\01412_Part A.XLS Plant submitted survey file

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# C_2005322EN.01000501.xml

| 17.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3942 — adidas/Reebok)

(2005/C 322/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 12 December 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking adidas-Salomon AG (‘adidas’, Germany), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Reebok International Ltd. (‘Reebok’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 12 December 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking adidas-Salomon AG (‘adidas’, Germany), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Reebok International Ltd. (‘Reebok’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for adidas: manufacture of sport footwear, apparel and equipment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for adidas: manufacture of sport footwear, apparel and equipment;

| — | for Reebok: manufacture of sport footwear, apparel and equipment. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Reebok: manufacture of sport footwear, apparel and equipment.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3942 — adidas/Reebok, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3942 — adidas/Reebok, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---