alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State ex rel. Yates, Appellant, *v.*Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Yates v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 82.]

(No. 98-1094

Submitted September 28, 1998

Decided December 2, 1998.)

*83*Danny V. Yates, pro se.*

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Brian M. Zets,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Yates asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, however, Yates’s claims lack merit.

First, as the court of appeals concluded, neither Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-261 nor any other administrative regulation imposes a clear legal duty on appellees to permit Yates to be given a polygraph examination at his request.

*84Second, as we held in *State ex rel. Sheppard v. Koblentz*(1962), 174 Ohio St. 120, 21 O.O.2d 384, 187 N.E.2d 40, syllabus, “[t]here is no clear legal duty on the part of [corrections officers] to permit a prisoner to subject himself to * * * a polygraph test in order to demonstrate his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted; and, the allowing of such test[ ] being strictly within the discretion of such officer[s], a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel such test[].”

Third, Yates did not establish any violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Because Yates has no constitutional or statutory right to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole. *State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888.

Finally, Yates should have filed a complaint or petition for a writ of mandamus instead of a “motion * * * in [the] form of appeal.” See *State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 193, 690 N.E.2d 6, 7.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

1

. Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-26(B) provides:

“Whenever a request is made by an inmate or staff member of an agency or person outside the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for an inmate to take a polygraph examination, the following shall apply:

“(1) As a general rule, no such examination shall be authorized without a valid court order.

*84“(2) The agency or person making the request shall be advised of the general rule and of the right to appeal the application of the rule to the facts of the particular case to the Director or his designee.

“(3) The appeal shall be submitted in waiting, with the reasons therefor, to the Managing Officei-. The Managing Officer shall forthwith forward the appeal with his recommendations to the Director or his designee.

“(4) No inmate or staff member shall be compelled to submit to a polygraph examination without his consent.”
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Stephen L. Day, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 13, 2006 /s/ Stephen L. Day         Stephen L. Day    President, Chief Executive Officer and    Director    *(Principal Executive Officer)*
§ 31.40-5 Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate—T/ALL. ( a ) All tankships on an international voyage are required to have a Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate. This certificate shall be issued by the U.S. Coast Guard or the American Bureau of Shipping to certain vessels on behalf of the United States of America as provided in Regulation 12, Chapter I, of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
( b ) All such tankships shall meet the applicable requirements of this chapter for tankships on an international voyage.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16662, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 90-008, 55 FR 30660, July 26, 1990]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Annual Report of MCFCorporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, D. Jonathan Merriman and John D. Hiestand, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| February 15, 2006 |                                                            |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | /s/ D. JONATHAN MERRIMAN                                        |
| ** **             | **D.  Jonathan Merriman*Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*** |
|                   | /s/  JOHN D. HIESTAND                                           |
| ** **             | **John D.  Hiestand*Chief Financial Officer***                  |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6275

In Re: IRVING D. CHAPPELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irving D. Chappell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Irving D. Chappell petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks

an order to compel a state superior court judge to direct his

appellate attorney to produce documents.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).Mandamus

may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United

Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court does

not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state

officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411

F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to

review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

The relief sought by Chappell 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 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
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending February 23, 2008

|Filer                          | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------ | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL         | Other Foreign  | CLS Bank International, New York, New York, an edge corporation, requests approval to amend its Articles of Association.                                             | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                     | Not applicable
|Federal Register:              | Not applicable
|TOMPKINS FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A5* 3A3     | Tompkins Financial Corporation, Ithaca, NY to acquire Sleepy Hollow Bancorp Inc., Sleepy Hollow, New York and thereby acquire Sleepy Hollow Bank, Sleepy Hollow, NY. | Newspaper:03/15/2008Federal Register:Not available     
|Newspaper:                     | 03/15/2008    
|Federal Register:              | Not available 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Second Quarter of 2008 (April 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 502.701 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to provide the hearing procedures for the denial, suspension, or revocation of an ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) license applied for or issued under part 515 of this chapter when the Bureau of Certification and Licensing has issued a notice of intent to deny under § 515.15 of this chapter or notice of revocation or suspension under § 515.16 of this chapter and the applicant or licensee timely requests a hearing under those sections.
( b ) Denial, suspension, and revocation proceedings under this subpart will be adjudicated by the administrative law judges of the Commission under the procedures set forth in this subpart. [Rule 701.]
#### § 502.42 Bureau of Enforcement.

The Bureau of Enforcement shall be a party to proceedings upon designation by the Commission or upon leave to intervene granted pursuant to § 502.68. The Bureau's representative shall be served with copies of all papers, pleadings, and documents in every proceeding in which the Bureau is a party. The Bureau shall actively participate in any proceeding to which it is a party, to the extent required in the public interest, subject to the separation of functions required by section 5(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act. [Rule 42]

[78 FR 45071, July 26, 2013]
# C_2012098EN.01001603.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/16

---

Action brought on 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-29/12)

2012/C 98/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2009/131/EC of 16 October 2009 amending Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2009/131/EC of 16 October 2009 amending Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 19 July 2010.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 273, p. 12.

1

---
#### The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, *v.*Anson B. Hoyt, Appellant. *Impleaded, et*c.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Cullen, J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARNEST PARKER,

Plaintiff, No. 15-11721

v. District Judge Judith E. Levy

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

ORDER VACATING SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE

On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff Earnest Parker, a prison inmate in the custody of the

Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), filed a pro se civil complaint under the Federal Tort

Claims Act. On June 15, 2015, the Court ordered the BOP to deduct the entire filing fee

from Plaintiff’s trust account and submit it to the Court [Doc. #5]. Because the

Defendants were not timely served, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his

complaint should not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

In his response to the show cause order, Plaintiff states that at the time the BOP

received the order to deduct the filing fee from his prisoner account, that account did not

have sufficient funds to cover the fee, and the BOP failed to deduct and send to the Court

a partial payment representing 20% of the funds in his account. Nevertheless, he states

that he now has the ability to pay the full filing fee of $400.00.

Therefore, the show cause order of January 13, 2016 [Doc. # 8] is VACATED.

Plaintiff will submit the full filing fee of $400.00 within 21 days of the date of this

Order.

-1-

5:15-cv-11721-JEL-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 40
Upon timely receipt of the Plaintiff’s filing fee, the Court will enter an order

extending the time for service of the summons and complaint on the United States.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: April 18, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

April 18, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager to the 

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

 The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for torts committed by federal 1

employees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Thus, the United States, not the individual employee, is

the proper party in an FTCA case. Service on the United States is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P.

4(i)((1), which requires sending a copy of the summons and complaint, by registered or certified

mail, to both (1) the civil process clerk at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern

District of Michigan, and (2) the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.

-2-

5:15-cv-11721-JEL-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 41
#### The State ex rel. United Screw & Bolt Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. United Screw & Bolt Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 28.]

(No. 96-2183

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*Calfee, Halter & Griswold*and *William L.S. Ross,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis L. Hufstader,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*29The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending November 29, 2008

|Filer               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|FSB INVESTMENTS LLC | * 3A1         | FSB Investments, LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to become a bank holding company through the acquisiton of up to 100 percent of the voting shares of MidWest Community Financial Corporation, Midwest City, Oklahoma, parent of The First State Bank, Canute, Oklahoma. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:12/12/2008
|Newspaper:          | Not available
|Federal Register:   | 12/12/2008   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 540.1 Scope. ( a ) The regulations contained in this subpart set forth the procedures whereby persons in the United States who arrange, offer, advertise or provide passage on a vessel having berth or stateroom accommodations for 50 or more passengers and embarking passengers at U.S. ports shall establish their financial responsibility or, in lieu thereof, file a bond or other security for obligations under the terms of ticket contracts to indemnify passengers for nonperformance of transportation to which they would be entitled. Included also are the qualifications required by the Commission for issuance of a Certificate (Performance) and the basis for the denial, revocation, modification, or suspension of such Certificates.
( b ) Failure to comply with this part may result in denial of an application for a certificate. Vessels operating without the proper certificate may be denied clearance by the Department of Homeland Security and their owners may also be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 in addition to a civil penalty of $200 for each passage sold, such penalties to be assessed by the Federal Maritime Commission (46 U.S.C. 44101-44106, 60105).
[49 FR 36313, Sept. 14, 1984, as amended at 74 FR 50730, Oct. 1, 2009; 78 FR 13277, Feb. 27, 2013]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20749 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT CORTEZ TURNER,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-95-273-3

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Cortez Turner appeals his conviction for being a

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1). He contends that 1) § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional

under the Commerce Clause, 2) the district court erred in

increasing his base offense level four levels, pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), 3) the court erred in increasing his base

offense level two levels for obstruction of justice, and 4) the
No. 96-20749

-2-

court erred in refusing to grant a reduction for acceptance of

responsibility. 

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities

convinces us that no reversible error was committed. Turner’s

challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) lacks merit. 

See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). 

The district court did not err in increasing Turner’s base

offense level under § 2K2.1(b)(5), see United States v. Davis, 76

F.3d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1996), or in refusing to grant a threelevel decrease in his offense level for acceptance of

responsibility. See United States v. Diaz, 39 F.3d 568, 572 (5th

Cir. 1994). Finally, we decline to decide his challenge to the

obstruction-of-justice enhancement because error, if any, was

harmless. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203

(1992). 

AFFIRMED.