alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-5173 INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 02-CV-796,

Judge Francis M. Allegra. ON MOTION 

### ORDER Upon consideration of the United States' motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT



### MAR 11 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date

cc: Norman H. Singer, Esq. Steven M. Mager, Esq. s8 Jan Horbaly Clerk US. COU RTSWPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MAR 1 1 2009 Jah,:kaitha.• CLERK
72 Rule Certification Letter ( 1 / 11 / 0 7 )73 Rule Certification Statement ( 1 / 11 /07)7475 Summary of Rule ( 1 / 11 /07)76 Detailed Statement of Fa cts Circumstances

( 1/ 11 /0 7 )77 –78 Summary of Hearing ( 1 / 11 /07)79 Rule 62

- 296.341

- Regional Haze

– Reasonable Progress Control Technology,

Effective 2/7/08

RUL E 62

- 2 96 .341

- REGIONAL HAZE

– REASONABLE PROGRESS CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY, EFFECTIV E 2/7/088081 Notice of Rule Development ( 5/25 /07)82 Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) Letter ( 11/2 /07)83 Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (12/4/07)848586
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1000

In re: TIMOTHY OMAR HANKINS, SR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:20-cv-00179-FL)

Submitted: May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from 

this court directing the district court to act on his application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and to issue a ruling on his complaint filed in the district court in September 2020. 

He also seeks a stay of all state actions and orders pending resolution of his federal court 

proceedings. 

Turning first to Hankins’ allegations of delay by the district court, our review of the 

district court’s docket reveals no undue delay. To the extent that Hankins seeks an order 

from this court staying state court actions and orders, Hankins 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.

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

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 this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
PETITION TO: SECRETARY THOMAS E. PEREZ, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Millions of Americans like me are counting on our 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts for a secure
financial future — and we've worked hard to build and grow our savings. These plans often involve complex
financial decisions, so many of us have to use investment professionals for guidance. Loopholes in the current
law make it easy for some on Wall Street to take advantage of hardworking Americans and line their own
pockets with our retirement savings. Last year alone, hidden fees, unfair risk, and bad investment advice
reduced Americans' retirement savings by as much as $17 billion. It's time to close this loophole and ensure a
high standard that holds anyone who gives financial advice genuinely accountable for helping us choose the best
investments. As one of your constituents, !’m counting on you to work to close the loophoie now.

Sincerely, cma Cree

Mr. Samuel Bray .
Reedsvilie, PA 17084-8621

PLOLSSXXXA 4?49b62041
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 129

Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 2001

Mr. FROST submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating minority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 are hereby, elected to the following standing committees

3 of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Miller of California

5 to rank immediately after Mr. Rahall of West Virginia;

6 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Honda of California.

Æ
EXHIBIT
23.1







FIRSTENERGY
CORP.





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-48587, 333-102074 and 333-103865) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-56094, 333-58279,
333-67798, 333-72766, 333-72768, 333-81183, 333-89356, 333-101472, 333-110662,
and 333-146170) of FirstEnergy Corp. of our report dated February 28, 2008
relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders,
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 28, 2008 relating to the
financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.








PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP





Cleveland,
OH


February 28,
2008
§ 213.137 Frogs. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the flangeway depth measured from a plane across the wheel-bearing area of a frog on Class 1 track shall not be less than 13 ⁄ 8 inches, or less than 11 ⁄ 2 inches on Classes 2 through 5 track.
( b ) If a frog point is chipped, broken, or worn more than five-eighths inch down and 6 inches back, operating speed over the frog shall not be more than 10 m.p.h.
( c ) If the tread portion of a frog casting is worn down more than three-eighths inch below the original contour, operating speed over that frog shall not be more than 10 m.p.h.
( d ) Where frogs are designed as flange-bearing, flangeway depth may be less than that shown for Class 1 if operated at Class 1 speeds.
( e ) The flange depth requirements in paragraph (a) do not apply to a frog designed as a flange-bearing frog (FBF) used in a crossing diamond in Classes 2 through 5 track, provided that the crossing angle is greater than 20 degrees unless movable guard rails are used.
[63 FR 34029, June 22, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 63388, Oct. 7, 2020]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2265

To prohibit the regulation of any tobacco products, or tobacco sponsored

advertising, used or purchased by the National Association of Stock

Car Automobile Racing, its agents or affiliates, or any other professional

motor sports association by the Secretary of Health and Human Services

or any other instrumentality of the Federal Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1995

Mr. FUNDERBURK (for himself, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BOEHNER,

Mr. BROWDER, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. JONES, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. COBLE, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana,

Mr. QUILLEN, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. MICA, Mr.

GORDON, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. BURR, Mr. HEINEMAN, Mr. SOUDER, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BARR, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, and Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To prohibit the regulation of any tobacco products, or tobacco sponsored advertising, used or purchased by the

National Association of Stock Car Automobile Racing,

its agents or affiliates, or any other professional motor

sports association by the Secretary of Health and Human

Services or any other instrumentality of the Federal Government.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2265 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

2 The Secretary of Health and Human Services or any

3 other official or instrumentality of the Federal Govern4 ment shall not regulate the use of tobacco or tobacco prod5 ucts, used or purchased by the National Association of

6 Stock Car Automobile Racing, its agents or affiliates, or

7 any other professional motor sports association under the

8 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and shall not take

9 any action with respect to tobacco, tobacco products, or

10 tobacco advertising used by the National Association of

11 Stock Car Automobile Racing, its agents or affiliates, or

12 any other professional motor sports association under the

13 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or the

14 Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health and Education

15 Act of 1986.

Æ
#### § 228.23 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6357

NOEL GRAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (4:11-cv-00227-CMC)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noel Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Noel Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Gray that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gray

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections

after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Gray’s 

pending motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit31.1

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I,Martha L. Long, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Century Properties FundXIX, LP;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for theregistrant and have: 

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, October 19, 1995 (131), Para 131.21 Adjournment]
[Page 1569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.131.21  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. SHAYS, at 8 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m., the House 
adjourned.
```
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0838.html[7/21/2015 3:40:11 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-kxmz

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0838

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: J Hoover

General Comment

When will you stop the oversight into or lives? We work 40 plus hours a week to provide for ourselves and to put

 away for the future. And now you deem that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves financially so you want

 more control, more power, more say over our hard earned money? When the Federal Government cannot even

 manage its own fianaces, but yet deem that you can do better with my money than me fat chance. How about

 you square away your debts and fianaces before you can say what I do with my money.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 17, 1995 (129), Para 129.16 "Ring of Fire" Film]
[Pages 1530-1531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.129.16  ``ring of fire'' film

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 2070) to provide for the distribution within the United States of 
the United States Information Agency film ``Ring of Fire''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. RIGGS, recognized Mr. SMITH of New Jersey 
and Mr. MORAN, each for 20 minutes.

[[Page 1531]]

  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. RIGGS, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present and not voting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. RIGGS, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced that further proceedings on the motion were postponed.
  The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
```
§ 31.5 Review by the reviewing official. ( a ) If, based on the report of the investigating official under § 31.4(b), the reviewing official determines that there is adequate evidence to believe that a person is liable under § 31.3 of this part, the reviewing official shall transmit to the Attorney General a written notice of the reviewing official's intention to issue a complaint under § 31.7.
( b ) Such notice shall include— ( 1 ) A statement of the reviewing official's reasons for issuing a complaint;
( 2 ) A statement specifying the evidence that supports the allegations of liability;
( 3 ) A description of the claims or statements upon which the allegations of liability are based;
( 4 ) An estimate of the amount of money or the value of property, services, or other benefits requested or demanded in violation of § 31.3 of this part;
( 5 ) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances that may relate to the claims or statements known by the reviewing official or the investigating official; and
( 6 ) A statement that there is a reasonable prospect of collecting an appropriate amount of penalties and assessments.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 21, 1995 (119), Para 119.23 Message from the President--Highway Safety]
[Page 1449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.119.23  message from the president--highway safety

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HOBSON, laid before the House a message 
from the President, which was read as follows:

To the Congress of the United States:
  I transmit herewith the 1994 calendar year reports as prepared by the 
Department of Transportation on activities under the Highway Safety Act, 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, as amended.
                                                   William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, September 21, 1995. 

  By unanimous consent, the message, together with the accompanying 
papers, was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
```
§ 37.11 Administrative enforcement. ( a ) Recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation are subject to administrative enforcement of the requirements of this part under the provisions of 49 CFR part 27, subpart C.
( b ) Public entities, whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance, also are subject to enforcement action as provided by the Department of Justice.
( c ) Private entities, whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance, are also subject to enforcement action as provided in the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing title III of the ADA (28 CFR part 36).
[56 FR 45621, Sept. 6, 1991, as amended at 61 FR 25416, May 21, 1996]
§ 271.105 Safety performance evaluation. ( a ) *General.* As part of its RRP, a railroad shall develop and maintain ongoing processes and systems for evaluating the safety performance of its system and identifying and analyzing its safety culture. A railroad's safety performance evaluation shall consist of both a safety monitoring and a safety assessment component.
( b ) *Safety monitoring.* A railroad shall monitor the safety performance of its system by, at a minimum, establishing processes and systems to acquire safety data and information from the following sources: ( 1 ) Continuous monitoring of operational processes and systems (including any operational changes, system extensions, or system modifications);
( 2 ) Periodic monitoring of the operational environment to detect changes that may generate new hazards;
( 3 ) Investigations of accidents/incidents, injuries, fatalities, and other known indicators of hazards;
( 4 ) Investigations of reports regarding potential non-compliance with Federal railroad safety laws or regulations, railroad operating rules and practices, or mitigation strategies established by the railroad; and
( 5 ) A reporting system through which employees can report safety concerns (including, but not limited to, hazards, issues, occurrences, and incidents) and propose safety solutions and improvements.
( c ) *Safety assessment.* To assess the need for changes to a railroad's mitigation strategies or overall RRP, a railroad shall establish processes to analyze the data and information collected pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section (as well as any other relevant data regarding its operations, products, and services). At a minimum, this assessment shall: ( 1 ) Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the railroad's RRP in reducing the number and rates of railroad accidents/incidents, injuries, and fatalities;
( 2 ) Evaluate the effectiveness of the railroad's RRP in meeting the goals described by its RRP plan (see § 271.203(c));
( 3 ) Evaluate the effectiveness of risk mitigations in reducing the risk associated with an identified hazard. Any hazards associated with ineffective mitigation strategies shall be reevaluated through the railroad's risk-based HMP, as described in § 271.103; and
( 4 ) Identify new, potential, or previously unknown hazards, which shall then be evaluated by the railroad's risk-based HMP, as described in § 271.103.
§ 244.7 Waivers. ( a ) A person subject to a requirement of this part may petition the Administrator for a waiver of compliance with any requirement of this part. The filing of such a petition does not affect that person's responsibility for compliance with that requirement pending action on such a petition.
( b ) Each petition for a waiver under this section must be filed in the manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this chapter.
( c ) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance is in the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions the Administrator deems necessary.
( d ) The procedures governing a petition for a waiver that are prescribed under this part apply only to FRA's disposition of such a petition. A person seeking a waiver of a Surface Transportation Board regulation would need to file a petition for a waiver with the Board. (*See* 49 CFR 1106.5.)
-----Original Message----- 

From: muftiah@cds1.net [mailto:muftiah@cds1.net] 

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 12:03 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 02, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Muftiah Martin 

4323 Taylor Ave. 

Santa Rosa, CA 95407
#### § 29.501 Must a Tribe submit any required audits to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the Department?

A Tribe must submit any required audits to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget procedures and provide prompt notice to the Department it has done so.