alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1929

In re: ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 4:09

- cr - 00340

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Gene Trappier, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1929 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Anthony Gene Trappier petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for compassionate release . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. 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). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and when the petitioner “show[s] that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003) ( cleaned up ); see Cheney , 542 U.S. at 380

- 81. Unre asonable delay in the district court may be cause for mandamus relief. In re United States ex rel. Drummond , 886 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); cf. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co. , 437 U.S. 655, 661

- 62 (1978) (“There can be no doubt that, where a district court persistently and without reason refuses to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ.”). We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay by the district court so as to render any delay unreasonable. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

* While we deny mandamus relief, we encourage the district court to act as expeditiously as possible in this matter. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1929 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. PETIT ION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1929 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
§ 38.55 Schedule of the Governor's obligations regarding the Nondiscrimination Plan. ( a ) Within 180 days of either January 3, 2017, or the date on which the Governor is required to review and update their Methods of Administration as determined by the schedule in § 37.55, whichever is later, a Governor must: ( 1 ) Develop and implement a Nondiscrimination Plan consistent with the requirements of this part; and
( 2 ) Submit a copy of the Nondiscrimination Plan to the Director.
( b ) The Governor must promptly update the Nondiscrimination Plan whenever necessary, and submit the changes made to the Director in writing at the time that any such updates are made.
( c ) Every two years from the date on which the initial Nondiscrimination Plan is submitted to the Director under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Governor must review the Nondiscrimination Plan and the manner in which it has been implemented, and determine whether any changes are necessary in order for the State to comply fully and effectively with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part. ( 1 ) If any such changes are necessary, the Governor must make the appropriate changes and submit them, in writing, to the Director.
( 2 ) If the Governor determines that no such changes are necessary, the Governor must certify, in writing, to the Director that the Nondiscrimination Plan previously submitted continues in effect.
( 3 ) Submit a copy of all reports of any monitoring reviews conducted by the Governor pursuant to § 38.51(b) since the last Nondiscrimination Plan update.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Patron Systems, Inc. for the period
ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Allin, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.1350, as adopted pursuant to SS.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Patrick J. Allin
---------------------------
Patrick J. Allin
Chief Executive Officer





                                                                              26
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

          - [A-570-836] 

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is extending the time limit for the preliminary results of a new shipper review of glycine from the People's Republic of China (“China”). This review covers one Chinese producer, Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp. (“Nantong”), for the period March 1, 1999 through August 31, 1999. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 26, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria Dybczak at (202) 482-5811; Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230. 

## The Applicable Statute 

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). 

## Postponement of Preliminary Results 

                        The Department has determined that it is not practicable to issue its preliminary results of the administrative review within the current time limit of June 28, 2000.                         *See Decision Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, Office Director to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group III,*                         May 16, 2000. The Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until August 28, 2000 in accordance with Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.                     

The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 90 days after the signature date of the preliminary results. 

Dated: May 16, 2000. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group III. 

[FR Doc. 00-13321 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 23-0243

CHELSEY S. DREW,

Petitioner/Appellee,

and

CHAZ M. HYLAND,

Respondent/Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Stipulation to Extend Briefing 

Schedule filed herein by Appellee. Finding that the parties have stipulated to a 

filing extension, the Court hereby orders that Appellee’s brief shall be filed on or 

before July 29, 2023.

DATED AND SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY BELOW.

CC: Christopher J. Gillette/Attorney for Petitioner

Peter Tomaryn/Attorney for Respondent

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 23 2023

06/23/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0243
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.1003 Chickahominy River.

The draw of the highway bridge, mile 1.5 at Barrets Ferry, shall open on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given.

[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984; 49 FR 37382, Sept. 24, 1984]
#### § 810.145 Currency exchange.

The high-wage component of material and manufacturing expenditures (and assembly expenditures under § 810.300) is expressed in U.S. dollars—US$16 per hour. Rules governing currency exchange are set forth and addressed in the Uniform Regulations and regulations and/or guidance issued by the Department of the Treasury and/or CBP.
#### In the Matter of Raymond Dembowski, Respondent, v Louis La Polla, as Mayor and Public Safety Commissioner for the City of Utica, et al., Appellants.

Submitted July 14, 1995;

decided October 19, 1995

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
#### § 95.17 Certifications and representations.

Unless prohibited by statute or codified regulation, DOL requires recipients to submit certifications and representations required by statute, executive order, or regulation on an annual basis only, if the recipients have ongoing and continuing relationships with the agency. Annual certifications and representations shall be signed by responsible officials with the authority to ensure recipients' compliance with the pertinent requirements.
§ 801.40 General. ( a ) Whenever the Secretary believes that the provisions of the Act or these regulations have been violated, such action shall be taken and such proceedings instituted as deemed appropriate, including the following: ( 1 ) Petitioning any appropriate District Court of the United States for temporary or permanent injunctive relief to restrain violation of the provisions of the Act or this part by any person, and to require compliance with the Act and this part, including such legal or equitable relief incident thereto as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits;
( 2 ) Assessing a civil penalty against any employer who violates any provision of the Act or this part in an amount of not more than $10,000 for each violation, in accordance with regulations set forth in this part; or
( 3 ) Referring any unpaid civil money penalty which has become a final and unappealable order of the Secretary or a final judgment of a court in favor of the Secretary to the Attorney General for recovery.
( b ) ( 1 ) Any employer who violates this Act shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such violation for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.
( 2 ) An action under this subsection may be maintained against the employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by an employee or prospective employee for or on behalf of such employee, prospective employee and others similarly situated. Such action must be commenced within a period not to exceed 3 years after the date of the alleged violation. The court, in its discretion, may allow reasonable costs (including attorney's fees) to the prevailing party.
( c ) The taking of any one of the actions referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall not be a bar to the concurrent taking of any other appropriate action.
#### § 417.15 Decision of the Administrative Review Board.

Upon appeal filed with the Administrative Review Board pursuant to § 417.14, or within its discretion upon its own motion, the complete record of the proceedings shall be certified to it; it shall notify all interested persons who participated in the proceedings; and it shall review the record, the exceptions filed and supporting reasons, and shall issue a decision as to the adequacy of the constitution and bylaws for the purpose of removing officers, or shall order such further proceedings as it deems appropriate. Its decision shall become a part of the record and shall include a statement of its findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all material issues.

[86 FR 1785, Jan. 11, 2021]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 70915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28456]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2013 / 
Notices

[[Page 70915]]

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Notice of December 11 Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid 
Meeting

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary 
Foreign Aid (ACVFA).
    Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Location: Horizon Room, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20523.

Agenda

    USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah will make opening remarks, followed 
by a discussion of current issues facing USAID, and an opportunity for 
public comment. A draft agenda will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web 
site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

Stakeholders

    The meeting is free and open to the public. Persons wishing to 
attend should register online at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee/get-involved.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Stonesifer, 202-712-4372

    Dated: November 20, 2013.
Sandy Stonesifer,
Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid 
(ACVFA), U.S. Agency for International Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-28456 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
```
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 395 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding National Pearl Harbor 

Remembrance Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2007 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INHOFE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding National Pearl 

Harbor Remembrance Day. 

Whereas on December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy 

Air Force attacked the sovereign territory of the United 

States at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; 

Whereas more than 2,400 United States service members and 

civilians were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor; 

Whereas there are more than 4,900 members of the Pearl 

Harbor Survivors Association; 

Whereas the 66th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor 

will be December 7, 2007; 

Whereas on August 23, 1994, Public Law 103–308 was enacted, designating December 7 of each year as National 

Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 395 ATS 

Whereas section 129(b) of title 36, United States Code, requests that the President issue each year a proclamation 

calling on the people of the United States to observe National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day with appropriate 

ceremonies and activities, and all departments, agencies, 

and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, and interested organizations, groups, and individuals, to fly the 

flag of the United States at half-staff each December 7 

in honor of the individuals who died as a result of their 

service at Pearl Harbor: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate, on the occasion of the 

2 66th anniversary of the December 7, 1941, attack on 

3 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, pays tribute to— 

4 (1) the United States service members and ci5 vilians who died in the attack; and 

6 (2) the members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors 

7 Association. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
[658 NE2d 1041, 635 NYS2d 168]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Santos, Appellant.

Decided October 31, 1995

*870APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Susan Epstein,*New York City, and *Daniel L. Greenberg*for appellant.

*Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney*of Bronx County, Bronx *(Robert L. Moore*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The issue presented on appeal is whether a defendant’s general motion to dismiss for insufficiency after the People have rested in a Bench trial raises a question of law. This Court has held that a specific objection is required to preserve sufficiency of the evidence claims for appellate review in jury trials *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10; *see, People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858). There is no material difference between jury and nonjury trials in this respect and no practical reason why the *Gray-Bynum*rule should not apply to both Bench and jury *871trials. To the extent our holding conflicts with *People v Nixon*(248 NY 182), that decision is overruled.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-160-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00609-CV

Allison Tracy WHITE,

Appellant

v.

Jason WALSH,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-02528

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order in Cause No. 

2014-CI-02528 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution is REVERSED and this matter is 

REMANDED to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to reinstate Cause No. 2014-CI02528 on the court’s active docket. It is ORDERED that appellant Allison Tracy White recover 

her costs of this appeal from appellee Jason Walsh.

SIGNED July 31, 2019.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: James Calfee v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00454

- CR

Trial court case number: 1591474

Trial court: 178th District Court of Harris County

The brief of appell ant

, James Calfee

, do es not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 9.10(a)(3), (b). Accordingly, appellant’s brief is struck

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.9(a). Appellant is granted 1 0 days from the date of this order to file a corr ected bri ef complying with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.10 ( “ Privacy Protection for Documents Filed in

Criminal Cases ” )

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9.10(d) (“Sensitive data must be redacted by using the letter “X” in place of each omitted digit or cha racter or by removing the sensitive data in a

manner indicated that the dat a has been redacted.”)

. Appell ee
, the State of Texas , may file an

amend ed appellee’s brief within 1 0 days of the filing of appell ant ’s corrected brief. Appellee’s motion to seal ap pellant’s brief is denied as moot

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Peter Kelly

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____ June 23, 2022

____
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7064

HORACE MONTAGUE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden, Maryland House of

Correction-Annex; BURLIE FRINK, Head of

Security, Maryland House of Correction-Annex;

JOHN DOE, Head of Records, Maryland House of

Correction-Annex,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-03-3191-AW)

Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bert Walter Kapinus, Hyattsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Glen

William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Horace Montague appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Montague v.

Conroy, No. CA-03-3191-AW (D. Md. June 17, 2005). 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