alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6540
In Re: ROBERT M. WILSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:04-cv-02776-JFM) Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 14, 2006 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert M. Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert M. Wilson petitions for writ of mandamus seeking an order reopening his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The district court dismissed Wilson’s habeas petition, originally asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as time-barred. In the instant mandamus petition, Wilson asks this court to direct the district court to reopen his petition under § 2241. We conclude that Wilson is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Wilson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32-3

                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 Lexington Precision Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

      (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/  Dennis J. Welhouse
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Dennis J. Welhouse
                                 Senior Vice President and Chief
                                     Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Financial Officer)
                                 April 14, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
8:00a Call to Order and Welcome Linsey Moffit-Tobin, GIAC Chair

8:10a Greetings Bruce Summers, AMS Administrator

Arthur Neal, FGIS Deputy Administrator

8:20a Facility Overview Kendra Kline, Assistant to the FGIS Deputy Administrator

8:25a Agenda Overview and Meeting Goals Linsey Moffit-Tobin

8:40a FGIS Updates Arthur Neal

9:00a Financial Overview Denise Ruggles, FGIS Executive Program Analyst

9:15a Resolutions Update Arthur Neal

10:00a BREAK

10:15a Resolutions Update continued Dr. Tim Norden, FGIS Chief Scientist

11:00a Boundary Exceptions Discussion Karen Guagliardo, Director, FGIS Quality Assurance and

 Compliance Division

12:00p LUNCH

1:00p Discussion with the National Organic 

 Program (NOP) - Organic

 Certification Information on Official

 FGIS Certificates

Betsy Rakola, Director of Compliance and Enforcement 

 Division, NOP

2:00p AMS Update on Hemp Rulemaking Charles Stephens, Associate Deputy Administrator, Specialty 

 Crops Program

2:45p BREAK

3:00p Introduction of Draft GIAC Policy

 and Procedures Manual

Arthur Neal and Linsey Moffit-Tobin

8:00a Call to Order Linsey Moffit-Tobin

8:15a FGIS - FDA MOU Discussion Anthony Goodeman, Director, FGIS Field Management Division

8:45a Public Comments Linsey Moffit-Tobin

9:15a Discussion of the Policy and Procedure

 Manual

Linsey Moffit-Tobin

10:00a BREAK

10:15a Recommendations/Resolutions Linsey Moffit-Tobin

11:00a Officer Elections Linsey Moffit-Tobin

11:30a Discuss Agenda Items for Next Meeting Linsey Moffit-Tobin

11:45a Closing Remarks Arthur Neal

Linsey Moffit-Tobin

12:00p Meeting Adjourns

Thursday

August 

15

Friday

August

16

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

Grain 

Inspection 

Advisory 

Committee 

Meeting

National Grain Center 

Kansas City, Missouri 

August 15 - 16, 2019
SAUIBS3B

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OFFICIAL BUSINESS?!

STATE OF TEXAS'^

PENALTY FOR C--:?''

PRIVATE USE

,c ^ 21 * sa«7/roga»jn.

s» niNrv bowes

?20

3/17/2015 PRIVATE USE »':>• -Sas

RIVERA, DOUGLAS WILMERffTr. CfcfNo^f

On this day, this Court has granted the trial court's request for an extension of timevpursuant to T.R.A.P. 73.5. The cle'rkVrecqrd containing the 11.07 writ application

is due in this Court on Tuesday, May 5','Ml 5.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

02 1M 3

0004279596 MAR 20 2015

(25\ MAILED fromWR-82-,969s03

ss

DOUGLAS WILMER RIVERA

JEFFERSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

TDC# 1760730

P. O. BOX 26007

BEAUMONT, TX 77720

l.,*lliiil,Miii,ii,*i**l,ili***,,ir,,i,»ili,,,"*,l,l*iili,l*lm

S
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

d0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148580

MELANIE SOKOLOWSKI, Guardian of

SKYLAR SOKOLOWSKI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148580

COA: 311661

Macomb CC: 2011

- 000632

- NI

COUNTY OF MACOMB,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

V IVIANO , J., did not participate because he presided over this case in the circuit

court.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judge McCl anahan, Senior Judges Coleman and Annunziata

MAGIC PAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND VIGILANT IN SURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2854-05-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 4, 2006 DOROTHY LUCILLE ROBERTSON

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Robert C. Baker, Jr.; Dobbs & Baker, on brief), for appellants. (Alan J. Ackerman, on brief), for appellee.

Magic Pan International, Inc. and its in surer appeal a decisi on of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding th at Dorothy Lucille Robertson proved that certain medical expenses associated with her treatment at City Hospital in Martinsburg, West Virginia from February 25, 2002 through March 5, 2002 and from April 28, 2003 through May 6, 2003, were causally related to her compensabl e January 18, 1985 back injury. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this app eal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the comm ission in its final opinion. See Robertson v. Magic Pan International, Inc. , VWC File No. 121-11-13 (Oct. 14, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2019 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cory E. Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:August 12, 2019/s/ Cory E. GilbertCory E. GilbertChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
AMS and the USDA Cattle & Carcass Training Center at the 

University of Nebraska - Lincoln will offer a training on

Emerging Technology and 

CME Cattle and Carcass 

Acceptance 

Join us on June 15-16, 2023, for this two-day course focused on a wide range of topics related to 

emerging technology in the livestock and meat industries, and CME live cattle and carcass

specifications and deliveries. AMS will provide updates on USDA’s supply chain initiatives, including an 

overview of USDA’s Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance Program.

In addition, attendees may participate in-person or virtually in an onsite USDA Cattle Contract Library 

Pilot Program listening session. For virtual attendees, the meeting will be broadcasted live as a 

webinar. To join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device, please join via Zoom. 

June 15-16, 2023, at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 

Loeffel Meat Science Laboratory 

Register for the event

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hua Chen,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)  The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Date:
August 19, 2009


By:
              /s/ Hua ChenHua
      ChenChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this 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.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  By:                       |  /s/ Robert Saucier                       |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:                     |  Robert Saucier                           |
|  Title:                    |  Principal Executive Officer and Director |
|  Date:                     |  April 12, 2010                           |
|                            |                                           |
|   By:                      |  /s/ Andrew Zimmerman                     |
|   Name:                    |  Andrew Zimmerman                         |
|   Title:    |  Principal Financial Officer              |
|   Date:                    |  April 12, 2010                           |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIANGZHONG SHAO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71129

Agency No. A087-829-271

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Liangzhong Shao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

APR 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

under the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 1048. The agency was not

compelled to accept Shao’s explanation that his memory was poor. See Zamanov

v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, we reject as contrary to the

record Shao’s contention that the BIA did not consider this explanation in

assessing the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. In the absence of credible testimony,

Shao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348

F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-71129
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ames True Temper, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Richard Dell, 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:

|  |           |                                                                                                                       |
|--|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (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/ Richard Dell                                                   |  |  |   |
| Richard Dell                                                       |  |  |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |  |  |   |
| May 15, 2007                                             |  |  |   |
|                                                                    |

----
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: 7/31/2015 TO: C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

– 2013 - 0602 FROM: Mi ke Gordon , EPA Region 3 SUBJECT: 3/23/15 UPenn Kleinman Center for Energy Policy Forum **SUMMARY** EPA presented at the UPenn Kleinman Center for Energy Policy Forum in Philadelphia , PA on March 23, 2015 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants . The C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTE NDEES**  Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3 Emily L inn, EPA Region 3 Dave Campbell, EPA Region 3 MaryCate Opila, EPA Region 3
BATON ROUGE 

METROPOLITAN AIRPORT 

SUITE 300, TERMINAL BUILDING 

BATON ROUGE, LA 70807 

PHONE (225) 355-0333 FAX (225) 355-2334 

March 10,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of 

1200 New Jersey Ave., ~ 

..,..'".....v .. for antitrust 

immunity and proposed joint Airlines and Japan 

Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld to 

compete effectively with the Starand SkyTearn alliance. This increased interalliance 

competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the Department's Open Skies policy 

flrstby solidifying U~S.:-Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further 

liberalization acr()ss Asia. 

After a thorough review, I encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this 

application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to 

deliver highly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will 

have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and 

pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having 

three competitive air alliances to choose from. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Jjmai1::amar:ino@brgov.com :! .' 

WWH'·flybtr.com
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF John Arley SODERQUIST, Appellant, and Donna Mae Marshall a/k/a Donna Mae Soderquist, Appellee.

No. 79CA0338.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

March 20, 1980.

Valjean H. McCurdy, Arvada, for appellant.

Reckseen & Lau, Don M. Reckseen, Northglenn, for appellee.

COYTE, Judge.

Husband appeals from an order of the trial court refusing to modify its previous order for support. We affirm.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1975, and permanent orders were entered August 20, 1975. The court granted custo*852dy of the parties’ twin boys to the husband with the wife to have reasonable rights of visitation and as the court advised the parties, with the expectation that the boys would quite often stay with the wife. The court further held that whomever had the physical control of the boys was to pay all the expenses in connection with the care of the boys.

The husband petitioned for the court to order wife to pay child support to him. He alleged that the wife seldom had the boys with her and that consequently he had the sole expense of their maintenance.

At the conclusion of the hearing on husband’s motion, the court held that there were not substantial changes in the circumstances of the parties or the boys which would render the August 1975 order relating to support unconscionable and therefore refused to enter an order requiring wife to pay child support to the husband. *See*§ 14-10-122, C.R.S. 1973. These findings are supported by the evidence and thus are binding on us on appeal. *Sall v. Sall,*173 Colo. 464, 480 P.2d 576 (1971).

The husband contends, however, that there had been no order for support in the first instance. We reject this contention, agreeing instead with the trial court’s conclusion that the original support order was that each party was to furnish support for the children during the time that he or she had the children and that the husband would not ask for child support to be paid to him.

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and KELLY, JJ., concur.
391 A.2d 672

#### Commonwealth v. Abken, Appellant.

Submitted September 12, 1977.

Margaret H. Poswistilo, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Richard J. Shiroff, Assistant District Attorney, and John E. Gallagher, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., dissented for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in *Commonwealth v. Walton,*252 Pa.Super. 54, 380 A.2d 1278 (1977).

SPAETH, J., dissented for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in *Commonwealth v. Walton,*252 Pa.Super. 54, 380 A.2d 1278 (1977), and his concurring opinion in *Commonwealth v. Adams,*245 Pa.Super. 431, 369 A.2d 479 (1976).

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.