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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1624

In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, 

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1) 

Submitted: July 17, 2023 Decided: August 10, 2023

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1624 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this 

court directing the district court to issue a ruling on his motions vacated in a prior appeal 

and ordering his release from custody. We conclude that Reid is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). Mandamus 

may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 

353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Reid is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITIONS DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1624 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### INDUST COMM v ARMSTRONG

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 8977.

Decided Nov. 26, 1928.

E. C. Turner, Columbus, and John A. Elden, Cleveland, for Commission.

Cerrezin.& Wilson, Cleveland, for Armstrong.

SULLIVAN, P J

The sole question to be decided in this case, under the record as above noted, and under Section 1465-90 is whether Armstrong had the right of appeal to the Common Pleas Court.

In Common Pleas Court, a jury having been waived, there was a verdict rendered of $15.00 per week for 167 weeks for temporary partial disability and the payments were to begin on September 1, 1925.

Now, the question is; is there prejudicial error in the proceedings below, and this question js answered by propounding the question; does the record of the Industrial Commission upon the application for modification show a, final order of such a nature that 'an ¡appeal Would lie therefrom to the court of Common Pleas? We are of the opinion that there is no error of a prejudicial nature for the reason that in the record of the Industrial Commission ¡as of Nov. 9, 1926, bearing upon the application for modification, the entry as noted above shows that the application for modification was considered and reopened and a. finding of fact was made thereon, and the finding of fact appeared in the record and is noted herein.

This court has frequently held in cases similar to the one at bar, that the denial of application for á modification of the award made under the provisions of the statute, was a final order and that appeal therefrom would lie to the Common Pleas Court, and we adhere to the rulings heretofore made by this court in cases of a similar nature, and with resnect to findings of the Commission which substantially resemble the record in the case at bar.

The cases which we refer to as heretofore adjudicated by tEis court are Joyce vs Industrial Commission No. 8357; Klotz vs Industrial Commission No. 8099.

Under Perkins vs Industrial Commission 106 OS 233, on page 242, it is laid down that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission is a continuing one and an application for modification or change with respect to *73the award, is a natural and logical outcome where circumstances justify the proceedings and it is the spirit of the law, if not the letter, that an application for modification and change in the original award is just as vital as the application itself, and the prerogative under the statute running to the claimant is just as sacred and legal in one instance as it is in the other.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery and Levine, JJ, concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 399.21 Charter exemptions (except military).

In deciding applications for exemptions from section 41102 of Title 49 of the United States Code by air carriers seeking to perform charter service in air transportation, we will give primary weight to the chartering public's own assessment of the air carrier services that best meet its transportation needs. Therefore, we will not, as a general rule, consider as relevant to our decision on such applications, objections based upon (1) offers by the objectors to perform the charter service, and/or (2) estimates of revenue or traffic diversion, unless in the latter case the objectors demonstrate that the diversion resulting from grant of the exemption would threaten their ability to fulfill their certificate obligations.

[PS-78, 43 FR 31886, July 24, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 43531, Aug. 22, 1995]
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 79649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32797]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that two meetings of the 
Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held 
on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, at the Harmon Library, 1325 S. 5th 
Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85003. The first meeting is administrative in 
purpose and will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 2 p.m.; 
the purpose of the administrative meeting is for members of the newly 
chartered Committee to receive orientation and ethics training. The 
second meeting is planning in purpose and will convene at 2 p.m. and 
adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m.; the purpose of the planning meeting 
is for the Committee to plan future Committee activity.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Western Regional Office by February 5, 
2012. The mailing address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 
90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so to 
atrevino@usccr.gov. Persons that desire additional information should 
contact Angelica Trevino, Administrative Assistant, Western Regional 
Office, at (213) 894-3437.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, December 19, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-32797 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
October 20, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00183-CV V.

OCIE PICKENS, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

order signed by the court below on February 21, 2011. Having considered the motion 

and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
§ 1917.121 Spiral stairways. ( a ) *Definition.* “Spiral stairway” means one with closed circular form, uniform sector-shaped treads and a supporting column.
( b ) *Requirements.* Spiral stairways shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Stairways shall conform to the minimum dimensions of Figure F-1; Spiral Stairway—Minimum Dimensions
A (half-tread width)
B Normal use by employees
11 inches (27.94 cm)
6 inches (15.24 cm). Limited access
9 inches (22.86 cm)
5 inches (12.7 cm).
( 2 ) Stairway risers shall be uniform and shall range from 61 ⁄ 2 to 101 ⁄ 2 inches (16.5 to 26.67 cm) in height;
( 3 ) Minimum loading capability shall be 100 pounds per square foot (4.79kN), and minimum tread center concentrated loading shall be 300 pounds (1334 N);
( 4 ) Railings shall conform to the requirements of § 1917.112(c)(1). If balusters are used, there shall be a minimum of one per tread. Handrails shall be a minimum of 11 ⁄ 4 inches (3.18 cm) in outside diameter; and
( 5 ) Vertical clearance shall be at least 6 feet, 6 inches (1.98 m) above the top step.
( c ) *Maintenance.* Spiral stairways shall be maintained in safe condition.
[48 FR 30909, July 5, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 40201, July 25, 1997; 65 FR 40942, June 30, 2000]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4923 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4923

   To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend by one year 
  certain port of entry donation authorities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 30, 2020

  Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Heinrich) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend by one year 
  certain port of entry donation authorities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Funding for Infrastructure at Ports 
of Entry Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PORT OF ENTRY DONATION 
              AUTHORITIES.

    Section 482(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
301a(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
        (A), by striking ``existing a'' and inserting ``existing''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``the date that is 4 
        years after December 16, 2016'' and inserting ``December 16, 
        2021''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1915.111 Inspection. The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking. ( a ) All gear and equipment provided by the employer for rigging and materials handling shall be inspected before each shift and when necessary, at intervals during its use to ensure that it is safe. Defective gear shall be removed and repaired or replaced before further use.
( b ) The safe working load of gear as specified in §§ 1915.112 and 1915.113 shall not be exceeded.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

*Agreement No.:*                     011299-003.                

*Title:*                     A.P. Moller-Maersk Sealand/P&O.                

Nedlloyd Agreement. 

Parties:

A.P. Moller-Maersk Sealand. 

                    P&O Nedlloyd Limited.                           ( print page 31317)    

*Synopsis:*                     The proposed modification restates the agreement to reflect the current understanding of the parties.                 

Dated: May 12, 2000.

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12431 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
§ 13.6 Prohibited acts. ( a ) *Interference.* ( 1 ) A contractor may not in any manner interfere with an employee's accrual or use of paid sick leave as required by Executive Order 13706 or this part.
( 2 ) Interference includes, but is not limited to, miscalculating the amount of paid sick leave an employee has accrued, denying or unreasonably delaying a response to a proper request to use paid sick leave, discouraging an employee from using paid sick leave, reducing an employee's accrued paid sick leave by more than the amount of such leave used, transferring the employee to work on non-covered contracts to prevent the accrual or use of paid sick leave, disclosing confidential information contained in certification or other documentation provided to verify the need to use paid sick leave, or making the use of paid sick leave contingent on the employee's finding a replacement worker or the fulfillment of the contractor's operational needs.
( b ) *Discrimination.* ( 1 ) A contractor may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee for: ( i ) Using, or attempting to use, paid sick leave as provided for under Executive Order 13706 and this part;
( ii ) Filing any complaint, initiating any proceeding, or otherwise asserting any right or claim under Executive Order 13706 or this part;
( iii ) Cooperating in any investigation or testifying in any proceeding under Executive Order 13706 or this part; or
( iv ) Informing any other person about his or her rights under Executive Order 13706 or this part.
( 2 ) Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, a contractor's considering any of the activities described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions, or a contractor's counting paid sick leave under a no fault attendance policy.
( c ) *Recordkeeping.* A contractor's failure to make and maintain or to make available to authorized representatives of the Wage and Hour Division records for inspection, copying, and transcription as required by § 13.25, or any other failure to comply with the requirements of § 13.25, constitutes a violation of Executive Order 13706, this part, and the underlying contract.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM SEC
FORM 10-K AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                      0001005229
<NAME>                  COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               6,867
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      136,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,271
<INVENTORY>                                        115,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   286,029
<PP&E>                                              90,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                      42,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     766,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              120,556
<BONDS>                                            421,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               146
<OTHER-SE>                                         188,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       766,911
<SALES>                                            735,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   735,445
<CGS>                                              542,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      542,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   107,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     50,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23,288
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 27,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        27,436
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.92


</TABLE>
[Nos. 23249-9-II; 23872-1-II.

Division Two.

December 13, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ronald Keith Johnson, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Ronald Keith Johnson, *Petitioner.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 97-1-00919-9, Frederick B. Hayes, J., entered April 1, 1998, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *affirmed*and petition *denied*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ.
#### § 99.3 Definitions.

*Aeronautical facility* means, for the purposes of this subpart, a communications facility where flight plans or position reports are normally filed during flight operations.

*Air defense identification zone* (ADIZ) means an area of airspace over land or water in which the ready identification, location, and control of all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) is required in the interest of national security.

*Defense area* means any airspace of the contiguous United States that is not an ADIZ in which the control of aircraft is required for reasons of national security.

*Defense visual flight rules* (DVFR) means, for the purposes of this subpart, a flight within an ADIZ conducted by any aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in accordance with visual flight rules in part 91 of this title.

[Doc. No. FAA-2001-10693, 66 FR 49822, Sept. 28, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 16755, Mar. 30, 2004]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANTS  SECOND  QUARTER 1999 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    104,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,538
<PP&E>                                         289,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,460,689
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,234,150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,539
<SALES>                                        190,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,593
<CGS>                                          120,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (106,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (106,180)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (106,180)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>