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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1016

In Re: CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Petitioner.

No. 15-1018

In Re: CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:14-cv-26978; 3:14-cv-00648-REP; 

3:14-cv-000704-HEH; 3:14-cv-00705-HEH)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chase Carmen Hunter, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chase Hunter petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order directing all of the district courts in this Circuit, 

except for the District of South Carolina, to grant her access 

to their electronic filing systems. We conclude that Hunter is 

not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 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).

The relief sought by Hunter is not available by way of 

mandamus. She cites neither statutory law nor judicial 

precedent demonstrating a clear right to file electronically. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny her mandamus petitions, deny her motion to 

voluntarily dismiss, and deny her motions for extension of time

as moot. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VI

TRANSPORT

TRANSPORT

Article 92

(ex Article 72 TEC)

(ex Article 72 TEC)

Until the provisions referred to in Article 91(1) have been laid down, no Member State may, unless the Council has unanimously adopted a measure granting a derogation, make the various provisions governing the subject on 1 January 1958 or, for acceding States, the date of their accession less favourable in their direct or indirect effect on carriers of other Member States as compared with carriers who are nationals of that State.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                          21,113
<SECURITIES>                                    45,914
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,148
<INVENTORY>                                     10,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,244
<PP&E>                                          49,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           304
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,612
<SALES>                                         76,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,325
<CGS>                                           36,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   251
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (415)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,453)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,985)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,468)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,468)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.28)
        


</TABLE>
#### Shimote v. Vincent; Vincent v. Fukushima; Fukushima v. Shimote

16679

10/25/95

Denied

80 Hawai'i 96, 905 P.2d 71
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6920

DONALD MAZARIEGOS

- VICENTE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00543

- AJT

- MSN )

Submitted : November 30, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Donald Cipriano Mazariegos

- Vicente, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Cipriano Mazariegos

- Vicente seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissi ng as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substanti al showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s asse ssment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate bot h that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mazariegos

Vicente has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the m aterials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### State v. Dubin

16369

9/06/96

Affirmed
#### John C. CRITCHLOW and Sophia Critchlow, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Jay L. CRITCHLOW et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 13738.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 25, 1975.

*217Cullen Y. Christensen, of Christensen, Taylor & Moody, Provo, for plaintiffs-appellants.

S. J. Sweetring, Price, for Jay and Lois Critchlow.

Boyd Bunnell, Price, for Funnon and Donna Shimmin.

Dean W. Payne, Provo, for Vera Shim-min.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a judgment declaring that plaintiffs, who sued to establish 1) a prescriptive easement in a road over defendants Shimmins’ property, and 2) a way by necessity over defendants Critchlows’ property, — had at best a permissive right. Affirmed with costs to defendants.

Jay Critchlow and his brother John each acquired, by a partition suit, a tract of land formerly belonging to their father, since deceased. Both tracts, along with an entirely separate tract belonging to Shim-mins, lying between the two, were cattle country in rugged mountain terrain in Carbon County, Utah.

There is no question but that for a long period of time all the parties litigant here used a mountain road or trail that traversed the subject properties to run and salt cattle, in spring and fall migrations.

This case strictly is factual and controversial in nature. There is nothing controversial whatever as to applicable principles with respect to prescriptive or other adverse rights that might divest a record owner of property rights and invest them in a record title stranger.

A rather innovative feature here is that both sides rely on facts showing that both the Critchlows and the Shimmins employed gates and locks, not guns, as did the Hat-fields and McCoys, in their friendly mountain feuding, — and rely on such impediments to support each contention. There is no question save that the evidence, if believed, gave Shimmins the nod in the lock lament, keyed with the fact that the Shim-mins locked the Critchlows out on more than one occasion, but furnished them a key to open the lock to open the gate, which seems to have evidenced a firm and resolute intention to pull the drawbridge to isolate their domain, only permissively to restore it by loosening the rope with neighborliness. These facts ■ and considerable others supporting the trial court’s conclusion give us little alternative under established rules of appellate review, but to affirm it, — which we do. Doing so the point on appeal about way by necessity need not be canvassed.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.
August 31, 2016

U.S. Department of T

ransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket NO. FAA-2015-0173

Dear Sir or Madam:

Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and videography

, as well as implementation of emergency use UAS systems with public entities. Alaska Aerial Media requests an amendment to the exemption to allow for night operation for use in aerial data collection applications with our aircraft previously approved via our amendments

.

Alaska Aerial Media LLC wishes to operate UAS systems at night in Class G airspace with the use of LATAS software to mitigate safety concerns by watching manned traffic and UAS traffic while avoiding obstacles or collisions. Aircraft will have flight lights and use a Visual Observer that has inspected area before flight. Alaska Aerial Medi a is confident that UAS operations can reduce the risk associated with manned aviation. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely,

Ryan P

. Marlow Alaska Aeria l Media 7960 Upper O Malley Road Anchorage Alaska 99507 T el e : ( 9 07 )-717-979 4
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83562-83563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3602-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Amendment No. 1 to 
Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-3602-EM), dated 
October 8, 2023, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 8, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Teresa Y. 
Serata, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of Benigno B. Ruiz as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

[[Page 83563]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-26270 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC,
general  partner of ATEL Cash  Distribution  Fund IV, L.P. (the  "Partnership"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Date:
May 11, 2004


/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
---------------------------
Paritosh K. Choksi
Executive Vice President of General
Partner, Principal Financial Officer of Registrant


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Centex
Corporation's March 31, 1999, Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000018532
<NAME>  CENTEX CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         111,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,855,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,533,819
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         555,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                 242,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,334,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        284,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,847
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,182,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,334,746
<SALES>                                      5,154,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,154,840
<CGS>                                        4,658,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,658,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                373,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                   141,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            231,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   231,962
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.75


</TABLE>
#### State v. Mori

16270

3/18/96

Granted

- Hawai'i -, - P.2d -
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSEPH M. DEGRAW
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3612

[ November 7 , 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Cynthia L. Cox

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 312015CF000016A, 312015CF000034A, 312015CF000040A, 312015CF000089A, 312015CF000192A, and

312015CF000215A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defen der, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C IKLI N and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OBAYDULLAH, Petitioner,



### v. BARACK H. OBAMA, 

### etal., ) ) ) ) 

### ) Civil Case No. 08-1173 (RJL) ) ) ) 

### Respondents. )

# ~ FINAL JUDGMENT**(November~,** 2010) Forthe reasons set forth in this Court's public Memorandum Order ofOctober 19, 2010 and for the reasons set forth in this Court's Classified Memorandum Opinion of November 24, 2010, it is hereby 

### ORDERED that Petitioner Obaydullah's petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus is 

### DENIED. SO ORDERED.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply12359Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Stephen J. Marmon (not verified)PermalinkMarch 21, 2023 - 9:20amBravo. This sort of work is needed throughout the Capitol complex.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7850

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNEVER LIVINGSTON, a/k/a Fatta,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (2:97-cr-00039-HCM-41)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennever Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Darryl 

James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennever Livingston appeals from the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and 

denying his motion to amend his § 2255 motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Livingston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED