alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

RASHID A. EL MALIK, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________
2012-7041

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 10-2013, Judge William A. Moorman.

__________________________
Decided: April 12, 2012

__________________________
R ASHID A. E L M ALIK , of Palos Verde’s Estate, California, pro se.

S TEVEN M. M AGER , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attor-EL MALIK v. DVA 2

ney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and F RANKLIN E. W HITE , J R ., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was D AVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

__________________________ Before P ROST , M AYER , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Rashid El Malik appeals the order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. El Malik v. Shinseki , No. 10-2013 (Vet. App. Sept. 2,2011). He argues that the Department of Veterans Affairs incorrectly denied him an increased rate of specialmonthly compensation. As this court has already explained—in an appeal brought by Mr. El Malik—“[t]he remedy of mandamus is a dras tic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” El Malik v. Shinseki , No. 2011–7201, 2012 WL 833663, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2012); see also Lamb v. Principi , 284 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“To obtain mandamus, the petitioner must show (1) that he has a ‘clear and indisputable right’ to the writ and (2) that he has no alternative way to obtain the relief sought.” (citation omitted)). We have also explained—indeed in yet another appeal brought by Mr. El Malik—that “[m]andamus is not a substitute for proper appeal and must be denied when the remedy sought is available after entry of a final . . . decision . . . .” In re El Malik , No. 2010-M937, 2010 WL 2076990, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2010); see also In re El Malik , 322 Fed. Appx. 976 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2008) (unpublished order)(converting Mr. El Malik’s petition for a writ of mandamus to a regular appeal). Here, Mr. El Malik does notEL MALIK v. DVA 3

offer any persuasive explanation for why his grievance cannot be addressed through a regular appeal. Therefore, we affirm the decision of th e Veterans Court denying Mr. El Malik’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

AFFIRMED
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: 

JETBLUE AIRWAYS 

CORPORATION 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0813 

Case No. 2012EA150g E C E IV ED 

MAY - 4 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Pursuant to Your Honor's Order of April 6, 2015, the parties respectfully wish to advise 

the Court that a settlement has been agreed between the parties. The parties are in the process of 

finalizing the settlement documents and will advise the Court when the settlement is concluded. 

In view of the agreed settlement, JetBlue Airways Corporation will not be filing a motion to 

dismiss by April24, 2015. 

This notice is filed with the consent of counsel for the FAA, Christian Lewerenz, Esq. 

Dated: April 22, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s 

Steven Raffaele 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

31 West 52"ct Street 

New York, New York 10019 

Tel.: (212) 513-3200 

Fax: (212) 385-9010 

Email: steven.raffaele@hklaw.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 

JetBlue Airways Corporation 

By: /s 

Christian Lewerenz 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Eastern Region, Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718-553-3273 

Fax: 718-995-5699 

E-Mail: christian.lewerenz@faa.gov 

Attorneys for the Complainant Agency 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this day, copies of the foregoing Notice of Settlement were placed in the 

United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Christian Lewerenz, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3273 

Fax: 718 995-5699 

Email: christian.lewerenz@faa.gov 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

IF FILING BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

2 
I hereby further certify that on this day a copy of the foregoing Notice of Settlement was sent via 

facsimile to the following: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Date: 1hd71JfS 

I I . Catillaz 

HO LAND & KNIGHT LLP 

31 West 52"d Street 

New York, New York 10019 

3
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H A RO LD B. SH A M BU RG ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M. DO DS ON , C o rr e c t i o n a l S g t . ; A. M U R P H Y , C o rr e c tio n a l S g t., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17071 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 3 7 4 5 - J SW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e yS . W hi t e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H a r ol d B . S ha m bur ge r , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng F i r s tA m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i ons . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED JAN 02 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17071 2 u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Sch. D ist. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah Cnt

y. , O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F .3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f f irm . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g S h am b u rg er ’s m o tio n to a lte ro ra m e n dth e ju d g m e n t b e c au s e S h a m b u r g e rf a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te g r o u n d s f

o rs u c h r e lie f

. Se e i d. a t1263 ( s e tt i ng f orth gr ounds f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 59( e ) a nd 60( b) a nd not i ng tha t“ [ t ] he ove rw he l m i ng w e i ght of author i tyi s tha tthe f

a i l ur e t o f

i l e doc um e nt s i n a n or i gi na l m ot i on oroppos i t i on doe s notturn the l a t e f

i l e d doc um e nt s i nt o ‘ ne w l ydi s c ove r e d e vi de nc e . ’ ” ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed)) . T he sc op e of thi s app ea l i s l i m i t ed t o revi ew of the Jul y 15, 20 11 order de ny i ng S ha m bur ge r ’ s m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the j udgm e nt ; a c c or di ngl y , w e do n o t a d d r e s s o th e ris s u e s r a is e db yS h a m b u r g e r . AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual report of GEOPHARMA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.



/s/ Mihir K. TanejaMihir K. TanejaChief Executive OfficerJune 29, 2005
No. 47968.

#### Protests 48444-K, etc., of Half Moon Mfg. & Trading Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the peat moss in question is similar to that the subject of *Half Moon Manufacturing & Trading Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D, 656) the claim for free entry was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PATRICK LEWIS RUDD, a/k/a Louie, a/k/a One-Eyed Louie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:97-cr-00063-H-3) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Lewis Rudd, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Patrick Lewis Rudd appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he sought to receive credit on his federal sentence for time served in state custody before his federal conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rudd , No. 7:97-cr-00063-H-3 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2007). We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies to
such officers knowledge that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                                 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Caroline Beasley                                            
|                      |  |  |  | Caroline Beasley                                                
|                      |  |  |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report 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.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1519 Lower Tribunal No. F91-500

________________ 

### Alphonso Lee, Petitioner,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus. Alphonso Lee, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Denied. See Zuluaga v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674, 676–77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised or should have been raised on directappeal, or which could have been, should have been, or were raised in postconviction proceedings.”); Schoenwetter v. State, 46 So. 3d 535, 562 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Mills v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 578, 579 (Fla. 1990)) (“Habeas corpus is not to be used for additional appeals of issues that could have been, should have been, or were raised on appeal or in other postconviction motions.”); Johnson v. State, 967 So. 2d 306, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[B]ecause the claims [appellant] raises in this appeal have been previously litigated by [appellant] and have been adversely decided by both the trial court and this court, we find that they are procedurally barred.”).
32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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.




/s/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottChief Executive OfficerMay 16, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Meyers, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Dated: November 10, 2008

/s/ DANIEL MEYERS Daniel Meyers Chief Executive Officer and President


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation
and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1
                         CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Dendo Global Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Lindsay Hedin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, 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 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.

/s/ Lindsay Hedin
Lindsay Hedin
CEO and CFO
April 9, 2004
#### In the Matter of Donald Faison, Appellant, v James Stinson, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 635]

—Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered November 23, 1994 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate porter at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, was directed to sweep several entrance areas and refused. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing to obey a direct order. After a disciplinary hearing in which the misbehavior report was admitted into evidence and petitioner and three inmates testified, petitioner was found guilty of the infraction. Petitioner commenced this proceeding contending, *inter alia,*that there is insufficient evidence to support the determination because the author of the misbehavior report was not interviewed. Supreme Court, finding that the misbehavior report was sufficient to provide evidence of the misconduct, dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals.

A misbehavior report, here authored and endorsed by the correction officer who gave petitioner the direct order and witnessed petitioner’s refusal to comply therewith *(see,*7 NYCRR 251-3.1), can be sufficient to provide substantial evidence to support a disciplinary determination *(see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 139-140; *see also. Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964). The report, together with *747petitioner’s own testimony which concedes the essence of the charge, amply meets the substantial evidence test and any contrary testimony simply posed an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see, Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin,*145 AD2d 802, *lv denied*74 NY2d 603).

We find no merit with petitioner’s remaining contentions. The determination referred to the misbehavior report which contains the specific facts forming the basis for the discipline and provides a written basis for review *(see, Matter of Baker v Wilmot,*65 AD2d 884, *lv denied*46 NY2d 710, *appeal dismissed*46 NY2d 939). Similarly, the reasoning for the punishment, four days of keeplock and loss of privileges and a $5 surcharge, is adequately set forth. Petitioner, who complains that the two correction officers involved were not interviewed, failed to call the officers as witnesses and thereby waived his opportunity to question them *(see, Matter of Lebron v Coughlin,*169 AD2d 859, *lv denied*78 NY2d 852). The Hearing Officer had no obligation to call witnesses and to present a case for petitioner *(see, Matter of Jackson v LeFevre,*128 AD2d 1001; *see also, Matter of Williams v Senkowski,*184 AD2d 949). Finally, the assessment of monetary penalty surcharges has been upheld as valid *(see, Matter of Allah [Sanchez] v Coughlin,*190 AD2d 233, *lv denied*82 NY2d 659, 660).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
No. 52356.

protest 691039-G (New York).

#### H. H. Schmidt Glove Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under-paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. RP07-330-001, RP00-404-019] 

Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the filing. 

Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested state commissions. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-5703 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P