alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF WEIH S. CHANG FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § § No. 377, 2016 §

Submitted: August 8, 2016 Decided: August 16 , 2016 Corrected: August 18 , 2016

Before HOLLAND , VALIHURA , and VAUGHN , Justices

. O R D E R

This 18 th day of August 2016 , it appears to the Court that : (1) On July 22, 2016 , Weih S. Chang filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Delaware State

Police for the arrest of a former Court of Common Pleas judge or , in the alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus to the Justice of the Peace Court for acceptance of his citizen’s arrest warrant for the same judge

. The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing Chang to show caus e why this petition should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the police under Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11(5) or to the Justice of the Peace Court under Supreme Court Rule 43(b)(vi). In his response to the notice to show cause, Chang

claims that he sought to appeal the Court of Chancery’s denial of his petition for a

writ of mandamus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Superior Court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus on August 3, 2016.2

(2) Chang filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court, not a notice of appeal. As to Chang’s demand for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the police, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to issuance of a writ of mandamus “ to the Superior Court , and the Court of Chancery, or any of the Judges of the said courts and also to any inferior court or courts established or to be established by law and to any of the Judges thereof and to issue all orders, rules and processes proper to give effect to the same .” 1 As to Chang’s demand for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Justice of the Peace Court, the petition needed to be first filed and denied in the Superior Court. 2 At the time Chang filed this petition on July 22, 2016, there was no petition for a writ of mandamus that had been presented and denied in the Superior Court. This petition must therefore be dismissed. (3) If Chang wishes to file a notice of appeal or a petition for a writ of mandamus based upon the Superior Court’s denial of the p etition for a writ of

mandamus he filed in that court on August 3, 2016 , he must file a notice appeal of the Superior Court order or a new petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court.

The notice of appeal or petition for a writ of mandamus must be accompanied by

the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauper is

.

1 Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11(5)

. 2 Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(vi ).3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of

a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED

. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5078 

To amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to modify 

requirements related to mortgage disclosures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2018 

Mr. HILL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 

1974 to modify requirements related to mortgage disclosures, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘TRID Improvement 

5 Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE RE7 QUIREMENTS. 

8 Section 4(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Proce9 dures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2603(a)) is amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5078 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘itemize all charges’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘itemize all actual charges’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘and all charges imposed upon 

4 the seller in connection with the settlement and’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘and the seller in connection with the set6 tlement. Such forms’’; and 

7 (3) by inserting after ‘‘or both.’’ the following 

8 new sentence: ‘‘Charges for any title insurance pre9 mium disclosed on such forms shall be equal to the 

10 amount charged for each individual title insurance 

11 policy, subject to any discounts as required by State 

12 regulation or the title company rate filings.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD WARDRICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (1:95-cr-00294-PJM-1; 8:99-cv-3381-PJM)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wardrick seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct a 

clerical error as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

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) (2006). 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 Wardrick 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund IV, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 13, 2011
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical trials review.                    

*Date:*                         March 21, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maurizio Grimaldi, M.D., Ph.D.,  Scientific Review Officer,  Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue Gateway Bldg. Suite 2C218, Bethesda, MD 20892 301-496-9374                         *grimaldim2@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 10, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-00669 Filed 1-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Advance Floor Decorators, Inc., a Michigan corporation
Bailey & Roberts CarpetMax of Tennessee, Inc., a Tennessee corporation
CarpetMAX, L.P., a Georgia limited partnership
C&S Textiles, Inc., an Idaho corporation
CarpetMAX Retail Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation
CarpetMAX of Utah, Inc., a Utah corporation
CarpetsPlus of America, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Colorado Carpet & Rugs, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Everythingdecor, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Floor Service Distributors, Inc., a Georgia corporation
4 Floors, Inc., an Ohio corporation
GCO Carpet Outlet, Inc., an Alabama corporation
GCO, Inc., a Nevada corporation
Investor Management, Inc., an Alabama corporation
Karen's, Inc., a Michigan corporation
Manasota Carpet, Inc. a Florida corporation
Maxim Equipment Leasing Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Maxim Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Maxim Retail Group, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Maxim Retail Stores, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Tri-R of Orlando, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Wadsworth & Owens Decorating Center, Inc., a Florida corporation
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 27, 2017 No. 04
- 17
- 00370
- CR Juan Guzman ZUNIGA JR . , Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Tex as

Trial Court No. 2006CR5239 Honorable Jefferson Moore , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On May 8, 2017, appellant filed a noti ce of appeal with the trial court clerk in trial court cause No. 2006CR5239. This court assigned appeal number 04
- 17
- 00296
- CR to the May 8, 2017 notice of appeal. On May 25, 2017, appellant filed a second notice of appeal with the trial court clerk in trial court cause No.2006CR5239. This court inadvertently assigned a second appeal number, 04
- 17
- 00370
- CR , to the May 25, 2017 notice of appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this court administratively close appeal number 04
- 17
- 00296
- CR. Appeal number 04
- 17
- 00370
- CR will be retained on the docket as the appeal from trial court cause number 2006CR5239.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunt o set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of July, 2017 .___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
#### COLLINS TRANSFER, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Clifford D. RIEPER.

No. 11531.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

June 29, 1939.

Bielski, Elliott & McQuillen, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellants.

L. E. Waggoner, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal docketed and dismissed without costs to either party in this court, per stipulation of parties.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      NO MONEY FOR LIBYA OR EGYPT

  (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I'm really disappointed today. We 
passed a CR for 6 months, and it contained language in there that was 
supposedly designed to keep Libya and Egypt from getting funds. My 
colleagues overwhelmingly voted for it. I do not criticize them for 
that.
  But I do feel very strongly in my heart that we made a mistake by 
not, in the Rules Committee, passing an amendment which would make sure 
that the money in that bill for foreign assistance did not go to Libya 
or Egypt.
  I read the document that they put out, and it does not prohibit the 
money from getting to Libya and Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood runs 
Egypt. They hate the United States, and their President has said he 
wanted to model his country after Iran.
  In Libya, they killed our Ambassador and scaled the walls. They 
burned our flag. They did it in Egypt, and they held up the al Qaeda 
flag; and we're going to give them money. It makes no sense.
  If the American people were paying attention to this right now, they 
would raise hell.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1647-E1648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  RECOGNIZING THE GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL OF THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE AND THE 
           GIRL SCOUTS OF THE USA ON THEIR 100TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JEFF MILLER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 21, 2012

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 
Girl Scout Council of the Florida Panhandle and the Girl Scouts of the 
USA on the occasion of their 100th anniversary.
  Over the last century, the Girl Scouts of the USA has been committed 
to service and empowering America's youth. Today, this organization 
continues to bestow in young girls the courage, confidence, and 
character necessary for success in life. They afford young girls the 
opportunity to grow and develop physically,

[[Page E1648]]

mentally, and spiritually. What began as only eighteen girls from 
Savannah, Georgia, on March 12, 1912, has grown over one hundred years 
later into a distinguished group with a membership of over 3.2 million 
girls and adults.
  In my district alone, the Girl Scout Council of the Florida Panhandle 
comprises over two thousand girls and nearly one thousand adult 
volunteers from Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. 
The members of the Panhandle's Girl Scout Council have demonstrated 
their commitment to bettering the community by participating in a 
myriad of events, such as the Christmas and Veterans Day Parades and 
Earth Hour. Through these events and fundraisers, they have touched the 
lives of many. Northwest Florida is proud of their achievements and 
grateful for their dedication.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am privileged 
to recognize the Girl Scouts of the USA and especially the Girl Scout 
Council of the Florida Panhandle for their service to the Northwest 
Florida community. My wife, Vicki and I congratulate them and wish them 
all the best for continued success.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEVIN ROUSE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 196 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of February, 2017

, the Application for Leave to File

Reconsideration Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED . Petitioner has 14 days in which to

submit a reconsideration application

. See Pa.R.A.P. 1123.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7862** 

KHAYR ROOKS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden at Sussex I State Prison , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 00543

- CMH

- TRJ )

Submitted : February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19 , 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Khayr Rooks, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Khayr Rooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 cer tificate 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 rel ief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 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 r eviewed the record and conclude that Rooks 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 lega l contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00564

- CR

Isidro RAMOS III,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR9685

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order on Motion for

Post

- Conviction DNA Testing is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 15, 2021.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Exhibit 31

Section 302 Certification

I, Michael McLaughlin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report.

4. I am the person responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and have:

a) I designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Company is made known to me by others particularly during the
period in which this reportis being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report on such
evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the Companys
internal control over  financial reporting that occurred during the
Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the Companys internal control over financial reporting;
and

 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial  reporting,  to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the 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 Companys ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

 b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: January 9, 2004

/s/    Michael McLaughlin
Michael McLaughlin
CEO/CFO
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)