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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6326

In Re: GREGORY LOUIS CHARLES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-143-S)

Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 18, 1999

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Louis Charles, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory L. Charles filed this petition for a writ of mandamus

asking this court to compel the district court to respond to his

motion to dismiss an indictment. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances.

See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner

must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the

respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by the

petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available.

See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Durham, 860 F.2d 135, 138

(4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Steelworkers of Am., 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

1979). However, unreasonable delay is reviewable by mandamus.

The district court has now entered an order denying Charles’

motion to dismiss the indictment. Therefore, the mandamus petition

is moot. To the extent that Charles also seeks to challenge the

district court’s order, his remedy is to file an appeal from that

order.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Charles’ petition for a 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
Case 4:22-cr-00231-P Document 25 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 39
Case 4:22-cr-00231-P Document 25 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 40
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 192 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 192

Designating June 6 through 13, 1993, as ``National Soccer Hall of Fame 
                                Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1993

   Mr. Boehlert introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Designating June 6 through 13, 1993, as ``National Soccer Hall of Fame 
                                Week''.

Whereas the National Soccer Hall of Fame was established in 1979 in Oneonta, New 
        York, consisting of the National Soccer Museum and Wright National 
        Soccer Campus;
Whereas interest in soccer among Americans is growing, as evidenced by the 
        holding of the 1994 World Cup in the United States, and the growing 
        number of world class athletes raised on soccer being recruited to our 
        men's and women's National and Olympic teams;
Whereas the Hall of Fame--the National Soccer Museum and Wright Soccer Campus--
        is the keeper of the national soccer archives, with a mission to 
        document, preserve, and promote American soccer and its history, and 
        provide educational services throughout the United States; and
Whereas National Soccer Hall of Fame Week was created to pay tribute to the 
        history of soccer and to provide those who helped shape that history an 
        opportunity to gather, remember and be remembered: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That June 6 through June 13, 
1993 is designated as ``National Soccer Hall of Fame Week'', and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe such week with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT E 

APP022

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 481
	
	 
 APP023

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 482
	
	 
 APP024

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 483
	
	 

 APP025

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 484
	
	 
 APP026

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 485
	
	 
 APP027

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 486
	
	 
 APP028

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-5 Filed 05/18/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 487
AFS-12-392-E July 9, 2012

Exemption No. 6140I Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12416

Mr. Paul W. Railsback Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d.b.a. Airlines for America 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004-1707

Dear Mr. Railsback:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6140, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 21, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d.b.a. Airlines for America (A4A), for an extension of Exemption No. 6140, as amended. That exemption from § 121.309(f)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows A4A-member airlines to locate the aft megaphone at door 4-left on their Boeing 747 aircraft.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to A4A.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6140, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 6140, as amended, to August 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/

John M Allen Director, Flight Standards Service
Case 4:22-cr-00141-O Document 64 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 135
Case 4:22-cr-00141-O Document 64 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 136
Exhibit 32.2

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winfield
Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, R. Scot Perlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated: February 11, 2005               By: /s/ R. SCOT PERLIN
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           R. Scot Perlin
                                           Chief Financial Officer & Director


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

                                      -25-
Case 4:22-cr-00110-O Document 18 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 29
Case 4:22-cr-00110-O Document 18 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 30
H. J. Res. 220

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

To designate the month of August as ‘‘National Scleroderma Awareness Month’’,

and for other purposes.

Whereas scleroderma is a disease caused by the excess production of collagen, the main fibrous component of connective tissue,

causing hardening of the skin or internal organs, or both, such

as the esophagus, lungs, kidney, and heart; Whereas approximately 300,000 people in the United States suffer from scleroderma, with women of childbearing age outnumbering

men 4 to 1;

Whereas scleroderma, a painful, crippling, and disfiguring disease, is most often progressive and can result in premature death; Whereas the symptoms of scleroderma are variable which can com- plicate and confuse diagnosis; Whereas the cause and cure of scleroderma are unknown; and

Whereas scleroderma is an orphan disease that requires intensive

research to improve treatment as well as find the cause and

cure: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the months

of August 1993 and August 1994 are designated as ‘‘National

Scleroderma Awareness Month’’. The President is authorized and

requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the

United States to observe each such month with appropriate activities that will enhance awareness of the disease and the need for

a cure.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

18:36 Sep 13, 1993 VerDate 01-JUL-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\HJ220.ENR bend06
December 7, 2016

Mr. Pierluigi Lanciotti

104 Windchase Drive

Lafayette, LA 70508

Dear Mr. Lanciotti:

Thank you for your 11/09/2016 email requesting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

cancel Exemption No. 16633 (Docket No. FAA–2015–2943).

In Exemption No. 16633, the operator was granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) 

and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary 

to allow the petitioner to conduct UAS operations.

Your request for cancellation is hereby granted, effective 12/7/2016.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service
FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL STATEMENT ON MONEY MARKET FUND REFORM

Short-term funding markets provide a key source of funding for businesses, local governments, 

and other market entities in support of the U.S. economy. Stresses in the short-term funding 

markets can impact other financial market participants and the broader economy. Disruptions 

experienced during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of 

resilient short-term funding markets to the stability of the U.S. financial system. Money market 

funds (MMFs) are significant participants in these markets. The pandemic-induced market 

volatility demonstrated that disruptions in short-term funding markets, including at MMFs, have 

the potential to create or amplify financial instability. 

COVID-19 Market Stress and Potential Vulnerabilities

In March 2020, in response to escalating concerns about the economic impact of the pandemic, 

market participants shifted their risk preferences toward cash and other highly liquid assets. This 

“dash for cash” created stress in both the secured and unsecured components of short-term 

funding markets. Liquidity pressures experienced by MMFs from rapid redemptions were 

affected by and subsequently contributed to dislocations in the short-term funding markets 

during the flight to liquidity and quality among investors. On March 18, 2020, the Federal 

Reserve, with Treasury approval, established the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility

with $10 billion of credit protection from the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization 

Fund. Outflows from prime and tax-exempt MMFs subsided and conditions in short-term 

funding markets improved, supporting access to credit and the recovery in market conditions and 

economic activity. 

Potential Options for Reform

In response to the events of 2020, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) 

released the Overview of Recent Events and Potential Reform Options for Money Market Funds

(PWG Report) in December 2020. The PWG Report emphasized that future reforms should

address structural vulnerabilities in MMFs, improve the resilience and functioning of short-term 

funding markets, and reduce the likelihood that official-sector interventions and taxpayer support 

will be needed to halt future MMF runs and address stresses in short-term funding markets more 

generally.

On February 4, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a request for 

public comment on the potential policy measures identified in the PWG Report, and today SEC 

staff briefed the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) on the comments it received 

regarding the potential reform options. The Council is encouraged by the SEC’s engagement on 

this critical issue. Given the interconnectedness of financial institutions and markets, the 

Council will continue to monitor this initiative in the broader context of efforts by financial 

regulators to strengthen short-term funding markets and support orderly market functioning, 

including during periods of heightened market stress.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KEVIN JEROME JONES, §

TDCJ No. 1169005, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1270-K

§

R. MOORE, ET AL., §

§

Respondents. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed 

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, 

the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge.

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court 

adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed 

to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a 

Case 3:22-cv-01270-K-BN Document 5 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 26
2

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective 

on December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before 

entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on 

whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state 

the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a 

certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A 

motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the 

time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be 

filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the $505 

appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED.

Signed July 15th, 2022.

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01270-K-BN Document 5 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 27
Title 19 United States Code – Customs Duties

Chapter 4 – Tariff Act of 1930

Subtitle III – Administrative Provisions

Part V – Enforcement Provisions

Section 1607 - Seizure; Value $500,000 or Less, Prohibited Articles, Transporting 

Conveyances 

• (a) Notice of seizure 

If -

• (1) the value of such seized vessel, vehicle, aircraft, 

merchandise, or baggage does not exceed $500,000; 

• (2) such seized merchandise is merchandise the importation of 

which is prohibited; 

• (3) such seized vessel, vehicle, or aircraft was used to 

import, export, transport, or store any controlled substance or 

listed chemical; or 

• (4) such seized merchandise is any monetary instrument within 

the meaning of section 5312(a)(3) of title 31; the appropriate customs 

officer shall cause a notice of the seizure of such articles and the intention 

to forfeit and sell or otherwise dispose of the same according to law to be 

published for at least three successive weeks in such manner as the 

Secretary of the Treasury may direct. Written notice of seizure together 

with information on the applicable procedures shall be sent to each party 

who appears to have an interest in the seized article. 

• (b) ''Controlled substance'' and ''listed chemical'' defined 

As used in this section, the terms ''controlled substance'' and ''listed chemical'' 

have the meaning given such terms in section 802 of title 21. 

• (c) Report to Congress 

The Commissioner of Customs shall submit to the Congress, by no later than 

February 1 of each fiscal year, a report on the total dollar value of uncontested 

seizures of monetary instruments having a value of over $100,000 which, or the 

proceeds of which, have not been deposited into the Customs Forfeiture Fund 

under section 1613b of this title within 120 days of seizure, as of the end of the 

previous fiscal year.
1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

REYNALDO PALOMO, § 

TDCJ No. 2104888, § 

 § 

Petitioner, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1151-N 

§ 

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § 

§ 

Respondent. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. An objection was filed by Petitioner. The District Court 

reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the 

Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge. 

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court 

adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has 

Case 3:22-cv-01151-N-BN Document 17 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 189
2 

failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition 

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this 

Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000).1

But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the $505 

appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 

SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2022. 

____________________________________ 

DAVID C. GODBEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on 

December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before 

entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a 

certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue 

or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a 

certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of 

appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does 

not extend the time to appeal. 

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time 

to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if 

the district court issues a certificate of appealability. 

Case 3:22-cv-01151-N-BN Document 17 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 190