alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion GRANTED and Order filed May 25, 2021
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00269

- CV

____________ IN RE TOM WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A BUILT WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 506th Judicial District Court Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17

- 02

- 24157



### ORDER

On May 14, 2021 , relator Tom Wright Construction, LLC d/b/a Built Wright Construction , filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator challenges the Honorable Gary W. Chaney ’s , Judge of the 506th Judicial District Court of Waller County , Texas, May 5, 2021 order granting real party interest’s motion to2 compel , entered in tri al court number 17

- 02

- 24157 , styled Bolton Steel Erectors v. Tom Wright Construction, LLC d/b/a Built Wright Construction

. Relator has also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See Tex. R. App. P

. 52.8(b), 52.10. On May 14, 2021, relator ask ed this court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus. It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the May 5, 2021 order granting real party in interest’s motion to compel in trial court cause number 17

- 02

- 24157 , Bolton Steel Erectors v. Tom Wright Construction, LLC d/b/a Built Wright Construction , STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Poissant, and Wilson.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7648** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MANCER L. BARRINGTON, III , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr - 00004

- RAJ

- FBS

- 2; 2:11

- cv - 00589

- RAJ )

Submitted : April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mancer L. Barrington, III, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Cameron Rountree, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mancer L. Barrington, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate o f appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U. S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional righ t. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barrington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
No. 63341.

protest 58/17936 (El Paso).

#### Joseph H. Brown & Son *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: donitrenkle@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:46:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Doni Trenkle

Elbert, CO 80106
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 475 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 475

Congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 
     National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Softball 
                             Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2007

Mr. Grijalva submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 
     National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Softball 
                             Championship.

Whereas, on June 6, 2007, the University of Arizona Wildcats defeated the 
        University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers to win the 2007 National 
        Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's College World Series 
        Softball Championship, their eighth such title since 1991;
Whereas Wildcats pitcher Taryne Mowatt set a College World Series record for 
        most innings pitched, and was named the Most Valuable Player of the 
        qualifying tournament;
Whereas Wildcats players Kristie Fox, Jenae Leles, and Caitlin Lowe were 
        selected for the all-tournament team;
Whereas the Wildcats, after beginning the 2007 season with a losing record, 
        completed the season with a 50-14-1 record; and
Whereas Wildcats coach Mike Candrea has taken the Wildcats to the College World 
        Series 19 times in the last 20 years, winning eight College World Series 
        titles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the University of Arizona Wildcats on 
        their victory in the National Collegiate Athletic Association 
        2007 Division I Women's College World Series Softball 
        Championship; and
            (2) recognizes and commends the efforts of the University 
        of Arizona Wildcats players, coaches, and support staff in 
        achieving their victory.
                                 <all>
```
From: Mariella Bakken

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:06:38 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Mariella Bakken
Oregon City, Oregon
From: danflemming@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:35:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask that you rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and

sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients.

If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations that

provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections.

I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services.

Sincerely,

dan flemming

Phoenix, AZ 85051
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1391 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1391

 Prohibiting the House of Representatives from adjourning until it has 
approved a bill to establish a comprehensive national energy plan that 
   addresses energy conservation and the expansion of renewable and 
                      conventional energy sources.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2008

 Mr. Fortenberry (for himself, Mr. Terry, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Gallegly, 
 Mr. Boehner, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. 
McKeon, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Culberson, Mr. LaHood, 
Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, 
   Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Poe, Mr. 
 Putnam, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Shuster, 
 Mr. Dent, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Lewis of 
 California, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Keller of Florida, Mr. Barton of Texas, 
  Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McCarthy of 
  California, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
 McHenry, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Goode, Mr. 
 Carter, Mr. Thornberry, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. 
  Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Heller of Nevada, Mr. Chabot, Mr. 
   LaTourette, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Scalise, and Mr. Davis of Kentucky) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Prohibiting the House of Representatives from adjourning until it has 
approved a bill to establish a comprehensive national energy plan that 
   addresses energy conservation and the expansion of renewable and 
                      conventional energy sources.

    Resolved, That it shall not be in order in the House of 
Representatives to consider any resolution providing for an adjournment 
period of more than 3 calendar days during the month of July or August 
of 2008 until the House of Representatives has approved a bill to 
establish a comprehensive national energy plan that addresses energy 
conservation and the expansion of renewable and conventional energy 
sources.
                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 9 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WENDEL ROBERT WARDELL, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 01-9004

(Tax Court No. 13738-99)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , ANDERSON , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Petitioner Wendel R. Wardell appeals from two rulings by the Tax Court:

denial of his Motion for a Continuance and grant of respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss. We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 26 U.S.C. § 7482. 

We review the Tax Court’s rulings on these motions only for an abuse of

discretion. See Colon v. Comm’r , 252 F.3d 662, 662 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure to

prosecute); Manzoli v. Comm’r , 904 F.2d 101, 103 (1st Cir. 1990) (continuance). 

Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or

fees, which is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

After careful consideration of the record on appeal and the arguments in the

parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in

either of its rulings. The court denied the Motion for a Continuance and granted

respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, which was based on petitioner’s alleged failure

to prosecute, after petitioner failed to communicate with the respondent before

trial and failed to appear at trial. The Tax Court’s scheduling notice and standing

pre-trial order had previously warned petitioner that failure to cooperate with

respondent or to appear at trial could result in sanctions, including dismissal. 

The court concluded that, even had petitioner appeared at trial, he would have

been unable to establish a case. On appeal, petitioner has not demonstrated that

he was unable to communicate with respondent at all times before the scheduled

trial date, and has not addressed the basis of the Tax Court’s rulings. The Tax
-3-

Court was well within its discretion to both deny the Motion for a Continuance

and dismiss petitioner’s case.

The judgment of the United States Tax Court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
No. 66522.

#### General Motors Overseas Operations and Baker Irons & Dockstader, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 320004-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts for Lindemann metal scrap balers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Kurt Orban Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 28, C.A.D. 724), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(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.
Date:	November 10, 2006

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21292]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 21-450; FCC 23-62; FR ID 173798]


Affordable Connectivity Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is correcting a 
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on September 1, 2023. 
The document issued a final rule to establish the enhanced discounts 
available for monthly broadband services provided in high-cost areas by 
participants in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

DATES: Effective October 2, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact, Travis Hahn, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access 
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97c3e5f6e1fee4b9dff6fff9d7f1f4f4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7e3c5d6c1dec499ffd6dfd9f7d1d4d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a> or 
202-418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2023-18621, appearing on page 60347 in the Federal 
Register of Friday, September 1, 2023, the following corrections are 
made:


Sec.  54.1814  [Corrected]

0
1. On Page 60355, in the third column, in part 54, in paragraph (b), 
``(2)'' is corrected to read as ``(3)''.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21292 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MANCER L. BARRINGTON, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:08-cr-00004-RAJ-FBS-2; 2:11-cv-00589-RAJ)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mancer L. Barrington, III, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique 

Broadnax, Cameron Rountree, Special Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mancer L. Barrington, III, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Barrington has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED