alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-639

In Re: JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-334-R) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997
Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court and the United States Bureau of Prisons to cease withholding funds from his prisoner's account for the purpose of paying his court-ordered restitution.Appellant claims that this practice violates this court's directives in United States v. Miller , 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996), and United States v. Johnson , 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995).Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987) ( citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394 (1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought is "clear and indisputable." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland , 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)); Beard , 811 F.2d at 826. Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus, and the decision is within the discretion of the court addressing the application for the writ. Beard , 811 F.2d at 827 (citations omitted). We find that Appellant has not met his burden of proof such that mandamus is the proper remedy in this situation. Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers of America , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), and given that the district court's sentencing order requires immediate payment in full of restitution by Appellant, Appel lant's right to relief by way of3 mandamus is not clear. See Mallard , 490 U.S. at 309; In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we deny Appellant's request for mandamus, and his motion for injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 of Atlas America Public #9 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, 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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            November
      13, 2008
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2364 

To extend the availability of low-interest refinancing under the local 

development business loan program of the Small Business Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To extend the availability of low-interest refinancing under 

the local development business loan program of the Small 

Business Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING UNDER THE 

4 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS LOAN PRO5 GRAM. 

6 Section 1122(b) of the Small Business Jobs Act of 

7 2010 (15 U.S.C. 696 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2 

8 years’’ and inserting ‘‘3 years’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1239 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian 

Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or an urban 

Indian organization to pay the monthly part D premium of eligible 

medicare beneficiaries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2005 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal 

organization, or an urban Indian organization to pay 

the monthly part D premium of eligible medicare beneficiaries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Indian El5 derly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 1239 IS

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF MEDICARE MONTHLY PART D PRE2 MIUM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404 of the Indian Health 

4 Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1644) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(d) PAYMENT OF MONTHLY PART D PREMIUM

7 UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.— 

8 ‘‘(1) PAYMENT OF MONTHLY PART D PRE9 MIUM.—The Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal orga10 nization, or an urban Indian organization may use 

11 appropriated funds or funds collected pursuant to 

12 the authority granted in this title to pay the monthly 

13 beneficiary premium (as determined under section 

14 1860D–13 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

15 1395w–113) of an eligible medicare beneficiary en16 rolled in a prescription drug plan or an MA–PD 

17 plan under part D of title XVIII of such Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 1395w–101 et seq.). 

19 ‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In deciding whether to 

20 pay the premium of an eligible medicare beneficiary 

21 under paragraph (1), the Indian Health Service, In22 dian tribe, tribal organization, or urban Indian orga23 nization shall consider the cost effectiveness of pay24 ing such premium for such individual, taking into 

25 account— 
3 

•S 1239 IS

1 ‘‘(A) the beneficiary’s expected drug utili2 zation; and 

3 ‘‘(B) other factors that the Service, Indian 

4 tribe, tribal organization, or urban Indian orga5 nization determines appropriate for the purpose 

6 of determining the cost effectiveness of paying 

7 such premium. 

8 ‘‘(3) ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARY DEFINED.—The 

9 term ‘eligible medicare beneficiary’ means an indi10 vidual who— 

11 ‘‘(A) is an Indian; 

12 ‘‘(B) is a part D eligible individual (as de13 fined in section 1860D–1(a)(3)(A) of the Social 

14 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–101(a)(3)(A))); 

15 and 

16 ‘‘(C) is not a subsidy eligible individual 

17 who receives a full premium subsidy under 

18 1860D–14(a)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

19 1395w–114(a)(1)(A)).’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 this section shall apply to monthly beneficiary premium 

22 payments made with respect to months beginning on or 

23 after January 1, 2006. 

Æ
No. 99-869.

#### U S WEST Communications, Inc. *v.*Federal Communications Commission et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.
U. S. Department of Homeland Security

 Office for Domestic Preparedness

 Washington, D.C. 20531

ODP Information Bulletin

No. 89 December 16, 2003

TO: All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

All Urban Areas Security Initiative Points of Contacts

All ODP Training Partners

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer

Director

SUBJECT: Vulnerability Methodology Assessment Report

In July 2002, the President approved the National Strategy for Homeland Security,

establishing a road map for the national effort to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism in

the United States. The National Strategy recognizes the vital role of state and local public

safety agencies in providing for the security of our homeland. In February 2003, the

President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Public Law

108-7 that provides state and local governments with the vital funding they require to

participate in the national effort to combat terrorism. In April 2003, the Emergency

Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, provided additional funds to expand and

continue these efforts.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office for Domestic Preparedness

(ODP) reflects the intent of Congress and the Administration to enhance and quantify the

preparedness of the nation to combat terrorism. Whereas most states and municipalities

have strengthened their overall capability to respond to acts of terrorism involving chemical,

biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNE) weapons, there continues to be room

for improvement in meeting our national priorities of preventing and responding to terrorist

attacks.

The Office for Domestic Preparedness identified a need to examine and classify various

types of vulnerability assessment methodologies, software and tools as they would pertain to

different types of assets. This Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Report provides an

analysis of various commercial and government vulnerability assessment methodologies

which can be used by state and local governments to assess the risk associated within their

areas of responsibility. The analysis provides a baseline comparative point from which to

evaluate participating vulnerability assessment providers’ services, products and

capabilities.
The Department of Homeland Security looks forward to continuing to empower the first

responder community - enabling them to make better-educated decisions about the

equipment and technologies available to them.

Hardcopies and CD-ROM versions of this document are available, in limited quantity, by

sending requests to:

Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk (Publication Request)

Office for Domestic Preparedness

Department of Homeland Security

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43142-43143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21228]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Ohio Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m. 
and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 1997, at the Hyatt 
Regency, 350 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. The purpose of 
the meeting is to discuss civil rights issues and plan future 
activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Grace Ramos, 
614-466-6715, or Constance Davis, Director of the Midwestern Regional 
Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-impaired persons who 
will attend the meeting and require the

[[Page 43143]]

services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, August 5, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-21228 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
No. 47137.

#### Protest 871636-G of Sprouse Reitz Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

From the uncontradicted evidence it was found that the pencil sharpeners in question are the same as those the subject of Abstract 46273. Following that decision the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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 PMC Commercial Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry
N. Berlin, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Barry N. Berlin
Barry N. Berlin
Chief Financial Officer
April 29, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.;2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions);
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony EppolitoChief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Emil BUFALO.

No. 59956.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 10, 1977.

In re: Emil Bufalo, applying for certiora-ri and mandamus.

Writ denied. The ruling of the trial judge is correct.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted to clarify and correct irreconcilable differences in the decisions of this Court. See *Monroe v. Wilhite,*255 La. 838, 233 So.2d 535 (1970) and *State v. McCarroll,*337 So.2d 475 (La.1976) La. Const. Art. I, § 17 (1974).

TATE, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted to clarify whether a “case” in which possible punishment of six months or over requires a jury trial applies not only to joinder of charges in a single indictment, *State v. McCarroll,*but also to separate indictments consolidated for trial upon the defendant’s motion (which may operate as a waiver of any right to jury trial otherwise applicable.)

DENNIS, J., dissents from the writ denial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp
Realty Fund V financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,767,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,152<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,234,802
<PP&E>                                      71,555,618<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (38,535,397)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,162,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,928,530
<BONDS>                                     42,270,255<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,036,516<F5>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,306,771
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,660,261<F6>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,338,356<F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,440,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (119,075)<F8>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F8>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F8>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all receivables included in "prepaid expenses and other assets"
on the balance sheet
<F2>Includes apartment complexes of $70,664,455 and deferred mortgage costs of
$891,163
<F3>Includes accumulated depreciation of ($38,066,263) and accumulated
amortization of deferred mortgage costs of ($469,134).
<F4>Represents mortgage notes payable.
<F5>Total deficit of the General Partners of ($384,389) and the limited partners
($7,652,127).
<F6>Includes all revenue of the Partnership.
<F7>Includes operating expenses of $5,329,153, real estate taxes of $1,621,545,
and depreciation and amortization of $3,387,658.
<F8>Net loss allocated (117,884) to the Limited Partners and (1,191) to the
General Partners.  Average net loss per unit of Limited Partner interest
is ($3.35).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NO. 06-14-00044-CR

ERIC L. HILL COURT OF CRIMINAL 

VS. OF APPEALS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE 

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 

 COMES NOW Eric L. Hill, Appellant, and moves this Court pursuant 

to Tex. R. App. Proc. 10.5 and 68.2(c) for and extension of fifteen (15) day’s 

or until February 23, 2015, in which to file the Appellant’s Petition for 

Discretionary Review herein. In support, Appellant would show the 

following; 

1. Appellant was convicted of Continuance Violence against Family. 

2. On February 26, 2014, Appellant was found guilty by a jury and 

the jury assessed a sentence of twenty-seven (27) years 

confinement in prison. 

3. The Sixth Court of Appeals issued its opinion on January 9, 2014, 

in which it affirmed the Appellant’s conviction. Said case is styled 

PD-0165-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 2/11/2015 2:32:56 PM

Accepted 2/12/2015 9:25:12 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Eric L. Hill v. The State of Texas, Appellate Case Number 06-14-

00044-CR, Trial Court Case Number 43,089-B.

4. This is the first request for extension of time.

5. Appellant requests an extension until February 23, 2015.

6. Good cause exists for the granting of the motion:

Appellant’s attorney was preparing for jury trials in the 115th

District Court of Upshur County for the two week jury session 

beginning January 12, 2015: State v. Carlos Bunch, Jr. Cause 

Number 12503; State v. Alton Ray Easley, Jr., Cause Numbers 

16346, 16499, and 16647; State v. David Bruce Williams, Cause 

Number 16580; State v. Ronald Ray Hohensee, Cause Number 

16696; State v. Mary Ellen Clark, Cause Number 16723; State v. 

Christopher Alan Ray, Cause Number 16784; State v. Cortney Lee 

Fields, Cause Number 16828; State v. Megan Malota, Cause 

Number 16861; State v. Kelly Wayne Haney, Cause Number 

16881; and State v. Lester Shane Browning, Cause Number 

16875.Further, Appellant’s attorney was preparing for a jury trial 

in the 124th District Court of Gregg County for the week of January 

26, 2015: State v. Jeremy Scott, Cause Number 43,891-B. Further, 

Appellant’s attorney has recently submitted briefs to the Sixth 
Court of Appeals in the following cases: State v. Casey Dale 

Hammack, Case Number 06-14-00175-CR and State v. Cory 

Martin Colvin, Case Number 06-14-00163-CR.

7. This motion is not sought for purposes of delay, but so that justice 

may be done. Therefore, Appellant requests until February 23, 

2015, in which to complete his Petition for Discretionary Review.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Tim Cone

______________________

Tim Cone, Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 04660350

P.O. Box 413

Gilmer, Texas 75644

Tel: (903) 725-6270

Fax: (903) 725-5494

e-mail:timcone6@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered 

to all counsel of record, on this the 11th day of February, 2015.

 /s/Tim Cone

_______________________

Tim Cone, Attorney at Law