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

No. 22
- 1149

In re: ADRIAN PAULINO, a/k/a AD, agent of Gordo , Petitioner.

On Petition s for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15

- cr - 00154

- AWA

- DEM

- 1)

Submitted : April 19, 2022 Decided: May 2, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Adrian Paulino, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1149 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/02/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Adrian Paulino petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that we review several rulings in his criminal proceeding and the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionat e release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) . He also accuses the district court judge of displaying bias and colluding with the prosecution, allegations we construe as a request for an order directing the judge to recuse herself. We conclude that Paulin o 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, m andamus 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). We conclude that Paulino is not entitled to mandam us relief regarding his request for review of the challenged rulings in his criminal proceeding and the denial of his motion for compassionate release. Mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir . 2007), and the proper vehicle for raising ineffective

- assistance and prosecutorial

- misconduct claims is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. While mandamus may be used to seek recusal of a district court judge, see In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), we conclude that Paulino’s conclusory assertions of bias and collusion, based on his dissatisfaction with the judge’s adverse rulings, are insufficient to warrant recusal, see Belue v. Leventhal , 640 F.3d 567, 57 2

- 73 (4th Cir. 2011). USCA4 Appeal: 22-1149 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/02/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 Accordingly, we deny Paulino’s petition and supplemental petition 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.
P ETITION S DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1149 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/02/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-2448: BECK v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4UT2xNdL0o\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-15-2021-19-2448-beck-v-wilkie-opinion-19-2448-opinion-1-15-2021_1718149\/\">19-2448: BECK v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-15-2021-19-2448-beck-v-wilkie-opinion-19-2448-opinion-1-15-2021_1718149\/embed\/#?secret=4UT2xNdL0o\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-2448: BECK v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"4UT2xNdL0o\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: BECK v. WILKIE [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-2448 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 45841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Resource for Identifying Immune Cell 
Networks.
    Date: August 17, 2006.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 3131, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Katherine L. White, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge 
Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1615, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac1dd9b9d9ec8eac4c3c284cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80ebf7b1b7b4e2c0eee9e8aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: July 28, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-6829 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 445 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 445

  For the relief of Jorge Luis Dos Santos, Suzete de S. Tenorio, Luis 
              Antonio Cardoso Tenorio, and Jullye Tenorio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. LaRocco introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Jorge Luis Dos Santos, Suzete de S. Tenorio, Luis 
              Antonio Cardoso Tenorio, and Jullye Tenorio.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS FOR JORGE LUIS DOS SANTOS, SUZETE 
              DE S. TENORIO, LUIS ANTONIO CARDOSO TENORIO, AND JULLYE 
              TENORIO.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Jorge Luis Dos Santos, Suzete de S. 
Tenorio, Luis Antonio Cardoso Tenorio, and Jullye Tenorio shall be 
considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act, upon 
payment of the required visa fees.
    (b) Deadline for Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply only if 
an individual under such subsection applies to the Attorney General for 
permanent residence status pursuant to such subsection within 2 years 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### § 32.19 Address for reports and correspondence.

Reports, statements, and correspondence submitted to the Federal Communications Commission in accordance with or relating to instructions and requirements contained herein shall be addressed to the Wireless Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

[51 FR 43499, Dec. 2, 1986, as amended at 67 FR 13225, Mar. 21, 2002]
§ 102-80.65 What are Federal agencies' responsibilities concerning the investigation of incidents, such as fires, accidents, injuries, and environmental incidents? Federal agencies have the following responsibilities concerning the investigation of incidents, such as fires, accidents, injuries, and environmental incidents in buildings they operate: ( a ) Investigate all incidents regardless of severity.
( b ) Form Boards of Investigation for incidents resulting in serious injury, death, or significant property losses.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.18 Administrative Dispute Resolution. ( a ) The Commission has adopted an initial policy statement that supports and encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures in its administrative proceedings and proceedings in which the Commission is a party, including the use of regulatory negotiation in Commission rulemaking matters, as authorized under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and Negotiated Rulemaking Act.
( b ) In accordance with the Commission's policy to encourage the fullest possible use of alternative dispute resolution procedures in its administrative proceedings, procedures contained in the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, including the provisions dealing with confidentiality, shall also be applied in Commission alternative dispute resolution proceedings in which the Commission itself is not a party to the dispute.
[56 FR 51178, Oct. 10, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 32181, July 21, 1992]
#### § 24.12 Eligibility.

Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to hold a license under this part.

[70 FR 61059, Oct. 20, 2005]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1757: KUTT v. APPLE INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pRQm6MJY9Q\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-20-1757-kutt-v-apple-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-1757-rule_36_judgment-11-9-2022_2031078\/\">20-1757: KUTT v. APPLE INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-20-1757-kutt-v-apple-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-1757-rule_36_judgment-11-9-2022_2031078\/embed\/#?secret=pRQm6MJY9Q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1757: KUTT v. APPLE INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"pRQm6MJY9Q\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: KUTT v. APPLE INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1757 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 15.29 Inspection by the Commission. ( a ) Any equipment or device subject to the provisions of this part, together with any certificate, notice of registration or any technical data required to be kept on file by the operator, supplier or party responsible for compliance of the device shall be made available for inspection by a Commission representative upon reasonable request.
( b ) The owner or operator of a radio frequency device subject to this part shall promptly furnish to the Commission or its representative such information as may be requested concerning the operation of the radio frequency device.
( c ) The party responsible for the compliance of any device subject to this part shall promptly furnish to the Commission or its representatives such information as may be requested concerning the operation of the device, including a copy of any measurements made for obtaining an equipment authorization or demonstrating compliance with the regulations.
( d ) The Commission, from time to time, may request the party responsible for compliance, including an importer, to submit to the FCC Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland, various equipment to determine that the equipment continues to comply with the applicable standards. Shipping costs to the Commission's Laboratory and return shall be borne by the responsible party. Testing by the Commission will be performed using the measurement procedure(s) that was in effect at the time the equipment was authorized.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 82 FR 50831, Nov. 2, 2017]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00108-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.I.V.S. and M.C.V.S., Minor Children

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-20008

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant Dino Villarreal. 

SIGNED March 11, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-2025: RODRIGUEZ v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vxF0yzQ6HA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-12-2021-19-2025-rodriguez-v-dva-opinion-19-2025-opinion-8-12-2021_1818101\/\">19-2025: RODRIGUEZ v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-12-2021-19-2025-rodriguez-v-dva-opinion-19-2025-opinion-8-12-2021_1818101\/embed\/#?secret=vxF0yzQ6HA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-2025: RODRIGUEZ v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"vxF0yzQ6HA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: RODRIGUEZ v. DVA [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-2025 Origin: MSPB Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4490 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4490

 To extend the Administrative Conference of the United States, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1994

  Mr. Bryant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the Administrative Conference of the United States, 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. EXTENSION.

    The first sentence of section 596 of title 5, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows: ``There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out the purposes of this subchapter not more than 
$2,600,000 for fiscal year 1995, $2,700,000 for fiscal year 1996, 
$2,800,000 for fiscal year 1997, and $2,900,000 for fiscal year 
1998.''.

SEC. 2. CHAIRMAN'S COMPENSATION.

    (a) Executive Schedule Rate.--Section 593(b)(1) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the period and ``The Chairman is 
entitled to pay at the highest rate established by statute for the 
chairman of an independent regulatory board or commission, and'' and 
inserting a comma and ``who shall be paid at the rate specified for 
level III of the Executive Schedule and who''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United 
        States.''.

SEC. 3. MEMBERS' CAPACITY.

    Section 593 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(6), by striking out the last two 
        sentences, and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
        by adding after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c)(1) The Chairman shall select the members of the Conference 
authorized by subsection (b)(6) in a manner which will provide broad 
representation of the views of private citizens and utilize diverse 
experience. Such members shall be members of the practicing bar, 
scholars in the field of administrative law or government, or others 
specially informed by knowledge and experience with respect to Federal 
administrative procedure.
    ``(2) The members of the Conference authorized by subsection (b)(6) 
shall participate in the activities of the Conference solely as private 
individuals without official responsibility on behalf of the Government 
of the United States and, therefore, shall not be considered to hold an 
office of profit or trust for purposes of eighth clause of Section 9 of 
Article I of the Constitution.''.

                                      <all>
```