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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: RAJ K. PATEL,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-113

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Raj K. Patel petitions for a writ of mandamus asking

the court to direct the United States Court of Federal 

Claims to docket his complaint submitted to that court on 

December 1, 2022. ECF No. 2-1 at 1. Mr. Patel also moves 

to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, “for leave to serve 

the President directly,” ECF No. 6-1 at 1, and to expedite, 

ECF No. 9.

In October 2022, Mr. Patel filed his third complaint at 

the Court of Federal Claims asserting breach of a contract 

with the Presidents of the United States “about living under the stress weapon.” Complaint at 52, Patel v. United 

States, No. 22-1446 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 3, 2022), ECF No. 1. On 

Case: 23-113 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2023
2 IN RE: PATEL

November 17, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed

Mr. Patel’s complaint. The court also issued an anti-filing 

injunction directing that the clerk of that court “accept no 

further complaints from [Mr.] Patel without a motion for 

leave explaining how the complaint raises new matters 

properly before” that court. Patel v. United States, No. 22-

1446, slip op. at 1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 9, 2022), ECF No. 16. 

On December 1, 2022, Mr. Patel submitted his fourth

complaint at the Court of Federal Claims with a motion for 

leave to file the complaint as a new matter. On January 5, 

2023, the Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Patel leave

and directed the submission be returned to him, explaining 

that his “justification for his new cause of action . . . is conclusory and lacks enough specificity to enable the [court] to 

determine whether Mr. Patel’s claims potentially fall 

within the subject matter jurisdiction of” that court. Patel 

v. United States, No. 23-7028, slip op. at 1–2 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 

5, 2023), ECF No. 1. Mr. Patel’s petition asks us to compel 

the docketing of that complaint.

Mr. Patel separately appealed from the November 2022 

judgment of the Court of Federal Claims but raised no challenge to the court’s anti-filing injunction. In a separate order issued today, we have affirmed the Court of Federal 

Claims’ judgment in all respects. Patel v. United States, 

No. 2023-1325 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2023). Because Mr. Patel presents no coherent argument here regarding how the 

allegations in his returned complaint are new matters that 

fall within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, he has 

not shown entitlement to having his complaint docketed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied.

Case: 23-113 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2023
IN RE: PATEL 3

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

March 7, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-113 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2023
No. 62817.

#### S. D. Industries Agency *v.*United States,

protest 317897-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

126) IV-E-116 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/23/2008 7:21:47AM Sheet 126 of 242 
P.2 

01-25-94 05:23PM FROM EPA EDSD ANN ARBOR TO AIR DOCKET P006/009 

A-ffM 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Onboard Docket A 87-11 

FROMJ Steven Silverman, Attorney S*-

RE: Telephone Conversation with Micheal Sherman, Esq. 

On January 4, 1994, I called Micheal Sherman, counsel for 

the Gasoline Marketers Association. I told him that there had 

been discussions between Agency and automobile industry officials 

(all documented in the administrative record) regarding the 

advisability of applying an onboard requirement to trucks, and if 

so, when. I indicated that the automobile industry officials are 

arguing, as they did at the public hearing and in their written 

comments, that Stage ll controls make it unnecessary to apply 

onboard to trucks, and that there has been discussion of phasing 

in an onboard requirement for trucks on a different (and longer) 

basis than for cars. I also invited comment from his group and 

asked him to contact API and NRDC (the other petitioners in the 

Onboard litigation), which he said he would do.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mistras Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended May 31, 2010, I, Sotirios Vahaviolos, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




(1)
such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.




Date: August 16, 2010

/s/ SOTIRIOS VAHAVIOLOSSotirios Vahaviolos

Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7624

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLEVELAND NELSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-94-57)

Submitted: April 21, 2004 Decided: May 28, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded in part; authorization denied in part by

unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cleveland Nelson, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of

its order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). Because Nelson’s motion, styled as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion, directly attacked his conviction and sentence rather than

any alleged defect in the collateral review process, it amounted to

a successive § 2255 motion that the district court lacked

jurisdiction to consider. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 207 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We

accordingly vacate the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion and

remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the

motion.

In accordance with Winestock, we construe Nelson’s notice

of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a

successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 208. In order to obtain

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must

assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional

law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court

to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence

sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).

Nelson does not satisfy either of these conditions. Accordingly,
- 3 -

we deny Nelson’s implicit application for leave to file a second

§ 2255 motion.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART;

AUTHORIZATION DENIED IN PART
Before the First Division,

May 10, 1966

No. P66/51.

protests 63/10092 and 63/10272 (Los Angeles).

#### Bradlow, Inc. *v.*United States,

Nici-iols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, certain merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of the second spools for spinning reels similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *Charles Garcia & Co., Inc.*(48 CCPA 140, C.A.D. 780), which was held dutiable as entireties with the first spools and spinning reels, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to the merchandise indicated by the notations of the examiner on the invoice.
From: sharon_manney@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:19:51 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,

Sharon Thorsen

Mitchell, SD 57301
Searched for **http://www.coralreef.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.coralreef.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
January 7, 2016



## EXAMPLES OF BMPs IN PES TICIDE PRODUCT FIFRA LABELS TO ADDRESS

WATER QUALITY

Product ( Active Ingredient) Relevant

Use

- pattern Text on Label

Anvil 10+10 (Sumithrin) Adult

mosquito, midges,

black flies This product is toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish and aquatic invertebrates.Runoff

from treated areas or deposition of spray droplets into a body of water may be hazardous to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply over permanent bodies of water (lakes, rivers, permanent streams, natural ponds, commercial fish ponds,swamps,

marshes or estuaries), except when necessary to target areas where adult mosquitoes are present, and weather conditions will facilitate movement of applied material beyond the body of water in order to minimize incidental deposition into the water body. Do not

co ntaminate bodies of water when disposing of equipment rinsate or wash waters. Copper sulfate crystals Aquatic

weeds and algae

Element 3A (triclopyr) Aquatic

weedsJanuary 7, 2016



## EXAMPLES OF BMPs IN PES TICIDE PRODUCT FIFRA LABELS TO ADDRESS

WATER QUALITY

Aquamaster (Glyphosate) Aquatic

weeds

Captain XTR (copper complex) Aquatic

weeds and algae

Magnacide H (Acrolein) Aquatic

weeds and algae (irrigation canals)

Earthtec (copper sulfate) Aquatic

weeds and algae,

molluscicideJanuary 7, 2016



## EXAMPLES OF BMPs IN PES TICIDE PRODUCT FIFRA LABELS TO ADDRESS

WATER QUALITY

Weedestroy (2

- 4, D) Aquatic

weeds

Verbanone Forest

Canopy

Krenite (ammonium salt of fosamine) Forest

Canopy

MCH Bubble Caps (3

- methyl

- 2

- cyclohexen

- 1

- one*) Forest

Canopy

MCM 60 (Metsulfuron methyl) Forest

Canopy

Tordon K (picloram) Forest

CanopyJanuary 7, 2016



## EXAMPLES OF BMPs IN PES TICIDE PRODUCT FIFRA LABELS TO ADDRESS

WATER QUALITY

Prentox Fish Toxicant (5% rotenone) Animal

Diazinon AG600 (Diazinon) Animal?
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________

)

Application of )

)

PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. ) DOCKET OST-2009-0139

)

for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 )

(Bahamas-U.S. charters) )

__________________________________________)

APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE AIR LTD.

FOR RENEWAL OR REISSUANCE OF AN EXEMPTION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

John R. Mietus, Jr.

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500

(202) 747-5212

(240) 396-5362 fax

john@mietuslaw.com

 Counsel for PERFORMANCE AIR LTD.

NOTICE: Any person may support or oppose this application by filing an answer 

and serving a copy of the answer on counsel for Performance Air and upon 

persons served with this application no later than January 2, 2014.

December 17, 2013
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________

)

Application of )

)

PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0139

) December 17, 2013

for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 )

(Bahamas-U.S. charters) )

__________________________________________)

APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE AIR LTD.

FOR RENEWAL OR REISSUANCE OF AN EXEMPTION

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109(c), Performance Air Ltd. ("Performance Air")

respectfully requests renewal or reissuance of the above-captioned exemption, granted by 

Notice of Action Taken dated November 15, 2012 (the “Notice”), for a one-year period.

The Notice permitted Performance Air to engage in charter foreign air transportation of 

persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the Bahamas and a point or 

points in the United States, and other charters pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212 of the 

Department’s regulations, using small aircraft. Performance Air inadvertently allowed its 

exemption to expire, but it now is working toward the FAA authority necessary for it to 

commence U.S. operations and therefore wishes to restore its DOT authority. In support 

of this application, Performance Air states as follows: 

1. Performance Air is a Bahamian flag carrier and intends to operate BahamasU.S. charter service under the above-captioned charter authority. It remains licensed by 

the Bahamian Department of Civil Aviation to perform charter air transportation, and 

Bahamas-U.S. charter operations remain governed by principles of comity and reciprocity 

that support the Department’s continued grant of authority. See, e.g., Island Wings Limited,
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 584 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 25, 2007.
Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound financial plan;
Whereas life insurance provides financial security for families by helping 
        surviving members meet immediate and long-term financial obligations and 
        objectives in the event of a premature death in their family;
Whereas approximately 68,000,000 United States citizens lack the adequate level 
        of life insurance coverage needed to ensure a secure financial future 
        for their loved ones;
Whereas life insurance products protect against the uncertainties of life by 
        enabling individuals and families to manage the financial risks of 
        premature death, disability, and long-term care;
Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit from professional 
        insurance and financial planning advice, including an assessment of 
        their life insurance needs; and
Whereas numerous groups supporting life insurance have designated September 2007 
        as ``National Life Insurance Awareness Month'' as a means to encourage 
        consumers to--

    (1) become more aware of their life insurance needs;

    (2) seek professional advice regarding life insurance; and

    (3) take the actions necessary to achieve financial security for their 
loved ones: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life Insurance 
        Awareness Month''; and
            (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, schools, 
        nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the citizens of the United 
        States to observe the month with appropriate programs and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





In
connection with this Annual Report of Recovery Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ending _________, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Jeffrey A. Beunier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies to the best of his knowledge and belief, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





By:
              /s/Jeffrey A. BeunierJeffrey
      A. BeunierChief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer





April 14,
2010




A signed
original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case No. 12,937.

#### SLADE v. MINOR.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 139.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1817.

Marshal — Action against for Illegal Levy-Justification — Presumptions.

1. In an action of trespass against the marshal of the District of Columbia for levying a distress for a militia fine, it is only necessary for him, in his justification, to prove those facts which give jurisdiction to the military court, and that it was regularly constituted, and imposed the fine.

2. The acts of such a court are presumed to be correct, and it is not competent for the plaintiff to show their irregularity.

3. An alien is not liable to militia duty.

4. Naturalization cannot be proved by parol.

[Cited in Charles Green’s Son v. Salas, 31 Fed. 111.]

[Cited in Bode v. Trimmer, 82 Cal. 518, 23 Pae. 187. Cited in brief in Rump v. Com., 30 Pa. St. 477.]

This was an action [by Richard Slade] against [Daniel Minor] the deputy marshal of the District of Columbia, for levying a distress for a militia fine, imposed by a battalion court of inquiry, under the acts of congress of the 3d of March, 1803, and 1st of July, 1812 (2 Stat. 215, 769), “more effectually to provide for the organization of the militia of the District of Columbia.”

E. J. Lee, for plaintiff.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

was of opinion, that it was only necessary for the defendant, in his justification, to prove thóse facts which gave the battalion court of inquiry jurisdiction, and *318which showed that the tribunal was regularly constituted; and that having shown this, the acts of that court were to be presumed to be coiTeet, and that it was not competent for the plaintiff to show their irregularity.

THE COURT also decided that an alien •was not liable to militia duty, and that the naturalization of Charles Slade, the plaintiff’s father, could not be proved by parol.

Verdict for plaintiff, $56.