alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1600

In re: GREGORY SCOTT SAVOY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:20-cv-00784-LO-IDD)

Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Scott Savoy, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Scott Savoy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this 

court directing the district court to correct its order entered on March 4, 2021, or to grant 

his pending motion to alter the judgment. We conclude that Savoy is not entitled to 

mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for 

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

To the extent that Savoy alleges a delay by the district court in ruling on his 

postjudgment motion, our review of the record does not reveal undue delay in the district 

court. To the extent that Savoy seeks an order from this court directing the district court 

to act, we conclude that the relief sought by Savoy is not available by way of mandamus. 

Accordingly, although we grant Savoy’s motions to correct the mandamus petition and for 

leave to file physical exhibits, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 (commission file No. 33-51584), on Form S-8 (commission file No.33-68890), and on Form S-8 (commission file No. 333-28571) of our reports datedFebruary 18,2005, except for Note 3 as to which the date is March 15,2005 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., and Subsidiariesappearing in this Annual Report on Form l0-K for the year ended January 1,2005.

 

 
|                    | McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                    |                        |
|                    |                        |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota |                        |
| March  26, 2005         |                        |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3494]


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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board has submitted the 
following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL(S):
    (1) Collection title: Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions 
Under the RUIA.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: DC-1.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0012.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: March 31, 1997.
    (5) Type of request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 550.
    (8) Total annual responses: 2,200.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 917.
    (10) Collection description: Railroad employers are required to 
make contributions to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance fund 
quarterly or annually equal to a percentage of the creditable 
compensation paid to each employee. The information furnished on the 
report accompanying the remittance is used to determine the correctness 
of the amount paid.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Copies of the form and supporting 
documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance 
officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection 
should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 
North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, 
Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 
10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-3494 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO

SECRETR'

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPAN N.V. )

a foreign corporation

In the Matter of

Docket No. 9300

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY

a corporation PUBT 

PITT-DES MOINES, INC.,

a corporation.

PETITION TO RECONSIDER THE OPINION AND ORDER IN LIGHT OF

ENTRY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE RECORD AND OVERBREADTH

Respondents! petition the Commission to reconsider the Opinion and Order in light of

evidence of significant new entry following the close of the record and to re-open the record to

consider this additional evidence. Respondents also move the Commission to reconsider certain

provisions of its Order as being unecessarily overbroad. Respondents further request a stay

pending resolution of this Petition and a tolling of the statutory time to file an appea1.

POST-RECORD COMPETITION CONFIRMS

THE EXISTENCE OF NEW AND EFFECTIVE ENTRY

Introduction.

Limited by the record as it existed when it closed in January 2003, the Commission made

certain predictions regarding the likelihood and signficance of entr in the four alleged markets

at issue in this dispute. Whle the Commission set the bar at "whether a sea-change has occured

! Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company are

referred to herein collectively as "Respondents" or "CB&L" 2 Respo Its are also filing contemporaneously a Petition for Clarfication or, in the

Altemati . or a Stay.
#### GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and James M. Burlingame v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Willie Wilson.

No. 3525.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

July 7, 1969.

Hartman & LoCoco, Vincent T. LoCoco, New Orleans, for Govenment Employees Ins. Co. and James M. Burlingame.

Porteous & Johnson, Ben C. Toledano, New Orleans, for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Normann & Normann, Frank S. Nor-mann, New Orleans, for Willie Wilson, appellant.

John W. Bryan, Jr., New Orleans, for Al Swindoll, John F. Swindoll and Alva Louise Swindoll Burison.

Before REGAN, YARRUT and HALL, JJ-

REGAN, Judge.

The plaintiffs, Government Employees Insurance Company, and James M. Burlin-game, filed this suit against the defendants, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, the liability insurer of Mrs. Sarah Swindoll, and Willie Wilson, endeavoring to recover the respective sums of $182.80 and $100.00 representing property damage to the Burlingame vehicle which they assert was incurred as the result of the negligence of the defendants. After a trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Willie Wilson only, and from this judgment the defendant, Wilson, has prosecuted this appeal.

This case was consolidated with “Al Swindoll, John F. Swindoll, and Alva Louise, et al. v. Willie Wilson, et al., 224 So.2d 817” in which the plaintiffs seeks to recover damages for the death of their wife and mother caused by the negligence of the defendant, Wilson. This case was also consolidated with “Willie Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 224 So.2d 818 in which the plaintiff sought to recover for damages which he asserts he sustained as the result of the negligence of Sarah Swindoll in the operation of her motor vehicle.

For the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant, Wilson, is affirmed.

The defendant is to pay all costs of this appeal.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 15

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REVIEW REPORT

 

 

Board of Directors andShareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

 

We have reviewed theaccompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as ofMarch 31, 2003, and the related consolidated condensed statements of income andcash flows for the three- and six-month periods ended March 31, 2003 and2002.  These financial statements arethe responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews inaccordance with standards established by the American Institute of CertifiedPublic Accountants.  A review of interimfinancial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures tofinancial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial andaccounting matters.  It is substantiallyless in scope than an audit in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year withthe objective of expressing an opinion regarding the financial statements takenas a whole.  Accordingly, we do notexpress such an opinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we arenot aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanyingconsolidated condensed financial statements referred to above for them to be inconformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

 

We have previously audited, inaccordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, theconsolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30, 2002 andthe related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equityand cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our reportdated November 22, 2002, we expressed an unqualified opinion on thoseconsolidated financial statements.  Inour opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidatedcondensed balance sheet at September 30, 2002, is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which ithas been derived.

 

 
|                   |   |   | ERNST &  YOUNG LLP |
|------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|                   |   |   |                   |
|                   |   |   |                   |
| San Diego,  California |   |   |                   |
| April 25,  2003        |   |   |                   |

 

----
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7138 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require program participation 

agreements between institutions of higher education and Hanban if a 

Confucius Institute operates on the campus of the institution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2020 

Mr. ROY (for himself, Mr. YOHO, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. POSEY, Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, Mr. FULCHER, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

program participation agreements between institutions of 

higher education and Hanban if a Confucius Institute 

operates on the campus of the institution. 

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 ‘‘Transparency for Con5 fucius Institutes’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7138 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN 

2 INSTITUTIONS AND HANBAN. 

3 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(30) If a Confucius Institute (as defined in 

7 section 1091 of the John S. McCain National De8 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (132 

9 Stat. 1997; Public Law 115–232)) operates on the 

10 campus of the institution, the institution shall enter 

11 into a program participation agreement with the Of12 fice of Chinese Language Council International 

13 (commonly known as ‘Hanban’) that— 

14 ‘‘(A) clearly delineates between the Confu15 cius Institute’s programs and the institution’s 

16 own Chinese language programs; 

17 ‘‘(B) locates the Confucius Institute phys18 ically apart from the Chinese language pro19 grams, Chinese history programs, and Chinese 

20 cultural programs within the institution’s orga21 nizational structure and separates promotions 

22 for the Confucius Institute from promotions for 

23 the institution’s Chinese language programs, 

24 Chinese history programs, and Chinese cultural 

25 programs; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7138 IH

1 ‘‘(C) removes the Chinese assistant direc2 tor position from the Confucius Institute; 

3 ‘‘(D) subjects the staff and professors of 

4 the Confucius Institute to appropriate back5 ground checks; 

6 ‘‘(E) is publicly available in its entirety on7 line; 

8 ‘‘(F) does not have a confidentiality sec9 tion; and 

10 ‘‘(G) provides that the institution has final 

11 decision-making authority, including with re12 gard to conference themes, guest speakers, and 

13 topics for events on campus at the institution.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Mrs. Howard YOCOM v. Mrs. Clara D. PATTON.

No. 47126.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1973.

Palmer, Stewart & Gaines, Gulfport, for appellant.

Crockett Lindsey, Neil W. White, Jr., Gulfport, for appellee.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Harry G. Walker, Judge.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,

District Judge. (CR-02-24; CA-05-129-4)

Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the

requisite showing. See also United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65,

72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review). 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 before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY CLIFF HALLETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-93-8, CA-97-517-2)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Cliff Hallett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Cliff Hallett seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Hallett, Nos. CR-93-8;

CA-97-517-2 (M.D.N.C. June 22, 1998). Further, we note that

Hallett’s claim regarding Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) is

meritless, because the coconspirator testimony that he attacks was

not hearsay. Finally, Hallett waived appellate review of his claim

under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994) by failing to raise this claim

in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1** **SECTION 1350    CERTIFICATION**     I, E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board, President and    Chief Executive Officer of Crown Crafts, Inc. (the    “Company”), do hereby certify, in accordance with    18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my    knowledge:     1. The Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of the Company for the period ending December 30, 2007 (the    “Periodic Report”) 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 the Periodic Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company. /s/  E.    Randall Chestnut
#### Raymond D. BYRD, Appellant, v. Raymond D. MASSEY, Superintendent, Union Correctional Institution, Appellee.

No. 73-1294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
### NAICS: 999100

EPA or Federal Government

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate 1 = W $56.54 $37.15 $21.15

Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 46.3% 46.3% 46.3%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $26.19 $17.21 $9.80

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B =

W(1+Lb) $82.73 $54.36 $30.95

Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $41.36 $27.18 $15.47

Fully Loaded Hourly

Rate Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH $124.09 $81.53 $46.42

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 201 4 data

NAICS 999100

- Federal Executive Branch

Standard Occupational Codes:

Management: 11

- 0000, Management Occupations

Technical: 19

- 0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science

Occupations updated

3 / 25 /2014

Clerical: 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support

Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non

- farm, non

- federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition

, EPA

- 452

- 02

- 001, January 2002, pg. 2

- 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20

- 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Eddie James FLOWERS, Relator, v. The Honorable Murray GOODMAN, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-1004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Richard A. Beiley, Asst. Public Defender, for relator.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State Atty., for respondent.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition in which he set up the claimed right of discharge because of his compliance with § 915.01(2) Fla.Stat., F. S.A. Rule nisi was issued and the respondent has filed a brief and a response. From the briefs and oral argument it appears that there is no substantial issue as to the fact that the petitioner has complied with the statute and is entitled to discharge unless hé has acquiesced in the continuance of the cause.

The state presents a record showing that at the time of the continuance of the cause during the third term of the court in which appropriate demand for speedy trial had been filed, the petitioner who was represented by the public defender made no comment and therefore made no objection upon the state’s request for a continuance and the court’s granting thereof. The state urges that this failure to object constitutes a waiver by acquiescence and that the petitioner is therefore not entitled to discharge.

We hold that a simple failure to object is not a waiver by ascquiescence under the provisions of § 915.01(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Cf. State ex rel. Leon v. Baker, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 281; State ex rel. Johnson v. Edwards, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 393; Anderson v. Edwards, as Judge, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 720.

Having reached this decision we do not issue the writ, being confident that it will not be necessary under the circumstances of this case.

It is so ordered.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23





               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of AER Energy Resources, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 1997, included in
the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of AER Energy Resources, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-69982) pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. 1992 Stock
Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-69462)
pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. 1993 Non-Employee Director's
Restricted Stock Award Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-89068) pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc./H. Douglas Johns Stock
Option Agreement of our report dated January 17, 1997, with respect to the
financial statements of AER Energy Resources, Inc. incorporated by reference in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1997