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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1634

In Re: STEFANIE A. RODEN; In Re: JAMES D.

HABURN,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(7:04-cv-00336-jct)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stefanie A. Roden, James D. Haburn, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stefanie Roden and James Haburn petition for writ of

mandamus asking this court to resolve their civil action, which is

currently pending in the district court. We conclude that

Petitioners are not entitled to the requested 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 only be used 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).

To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that:

(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2)

the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act

requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4)

there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires;

and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in

the circumstances. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.

2001) (quotations and citation omitted). 

The relief sought by Roden and Haburn is not available by

way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, we deny the motion for appointment of counsel,

and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
[No. 23668-1-II.

Division Two.

December 15, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joshua D. Nicholas, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 97-1-00388-1, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered August 20, 1998. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Hunt, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
---

|Exhibit 32.1                                 
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|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 Quarterly Report of Tecton Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: June 14, 2007 | /s/ _Norman Meier                 
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                     | Norman Meier                      
|                     | President, Chief Executive Officer

---
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Quarterly Report of NB Manufacturing, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Derold L. Kelley,
President, Secretary/Treasurer and Director 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 the best of my knowledge,:





(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:           May
10, 2010


/s/Derold
L.
Kelley


Derold L.
Kelley


President,
Secretary/Treasurer and Director
Exhibit 4.3




Dear   Mr. Yu Chun Ming(余春明):




It is my pleasure to extend the following offer of employment to you on behalf of Maxclean Holdings Ltd.




Title:      Interim Chief Executive Officer.




Reporting Relationship: The position will report to:




Board of Directors




Job Goals:





To manage and develop the sales, production and the whole operation of the Company to achieve the following target net profit for the coming years:




2013 - Targeted Net Profit of RMB 5 millions




2014 - Targeted Net Profit of RMB 10 millions




2015 - Targeted Net Profit of RMB 20 millions




Base Salary:  Will be paid monthly of US$8,000  which is equivalent to US$96,000  on an annual basis.




Vacation and Personal Emergency Time Off: Vacation is accrued at 21 days on an annual basis. Personal emergency days are generally accrued per company policy.




Phone/Travel Allowance: Normal and reasonable expenses will be reimbursed on a monthly basis per company policy and upon completion of the appropriate expense request form.




Start Date:
04/09/2013









Your employment with Maxclean Holdings Ltd. is at-will and either party can terminate the relationship with 1 month notice.




You acknowledge that this offer letter, along with the final form of any referenced documents (such Stock Repurchase Plan, Job Description, Bonus Goals, etc.), represents the entire agreement between you and Maxclean Holdings Ltd. and that no verbal or written agreements, promises or representations that are not specifically stated in this offer, are or will be binding upon Maxclean Holdings Limited.




If you are in agreement with the above outline, please sign below. This offer is in effect for five days.















Signatures:










(Maxclean Holdings Ltd.)

(Mr. Yu Chun Ming余春明)Date:04/09/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3079

PATRICIA HOOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

AT0752070959-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Patricia Hooks moves for an extension of time to file her brief. The Merit Systems

Protection Board moves for leave to intervene for purposes of moving to reform the

caption to designate the Board as respondent. The Board states that the Department of

the Interior opposes.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent

when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The

employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches the merits of

the underlying case.

Hooks filed an appeal alleging that her resignation was involuntary. The

Administrative Judge determined that Hooks had not demonstrated that her resignation

was involuntary and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board held
that it did not have jurisdiction, it did not address the merits of the case. See Garcia v. 

Department of Homeland Security, 437 F.3d 1322, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) ("In a

constructive action case, the jurisdictional fact at issue is almost always whether the

facially voluntary action was involuntary. Involuntariness is essential for jurisdiction and it

must be proven by the claimant. But while jurisdiction is established under 5 U.S.C. §

7512, the merits of the case are determined by the agency's compliance with § 7513(a)-

(b).	In other words, the jurisdictional determination is not identical to the merits

determination"). Thus, the Board is the proper respondent.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Hooks' motion for an extension of time is granted. Hooks' brief is due within

60 days of the date of filing of this order. No further extensions should be anticipated.

The Board's motion to reform the caption is granted. The revised official

caption is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT

MAR 2 0 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly	FILED Clerk	U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUff

cc:	Willie C. Weaver, Sr., Esq.

James P. Connor, Esq.

Calvin M. Morrow, Esq.

s17

MAR 2 0 2009

CLERK

Date

2009-3079	2
<PAGE>

MAXCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 31.2 - CERTIFICATION

I, Vincent Shunsky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Maxco, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 14, 2005

                                             /s/ Vincent Shunsky
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Vincent Shunsky
                                             Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3004 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3004

    To amend the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act to extend the 
    authorization for the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 
                              Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2015

 Mr. Clyburn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act to extend the 
    authorization for the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 
                              Commission.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE GULLAH/GEECHEE 
              CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR COMMISSION.

    Section 295D(d) of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act (Public 
Law 109-338; 120 Stat. 1833; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking 
``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.3


 





TERMINATION
AGREEMENT


 


This
Termination Agreement, dated as of September 17, 2017, is entered into by and between Committed Capital Acquisition Corporation
II, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Serruya Private Equity (“SPE”).


 


In
connection with that certain stock purchase agreement that is contemplated to be entered into by and among the Company, certain
sellers of its securities, and CCAC II, LLC as purchaser, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, the parties
hereto join in and consent to this instrument terminating the term sheet that was previously entered into by and between the Company
and SPE (the “Term Sheet”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, effective as of the date set forth
above, and agree that, from and after said date, the Term Sheet shall be of no further force or effect.


 


This
document may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. It shall take effect as a sealed instrument
and be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of State of New York, without giving effect to the conflict of law
principles thereof.


 





	 	COMMITTED
    CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION II
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/S/
    MICHAEL RAPOPORT
	 	Title:	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	SERRUYA
    PRIVATE EQUITY
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/S/
    MICHAEL SERRUYA
	 	Title:
<TABLE>
<S><C>

                                                                                       Exhibit 10(j)




                                                                    February 25, 1998




Mr. Michael T. Yonker
Portec, Inc.
One Hundred Field Drive, Suite 120
Lake Forest, Illinois  60045

Dear Tim:

On July 17, 1997, I sent you a letter covering a success bonus arrangement which expires on March 31, 1998.  It now appears that  a
possible closing  on the last segment of Portec's business  would not occur prior to March 31, 1998.   Accordingly, as indicated in
Section 4 of the letter, I am hereby extending the expiration date of the success bonus from March 31, 1998, to July 31, 1998.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and  your agreement with the preceding terms at  the place provided on the enclosed  copy
and return such copy to me for Portec's files.

                                                                    Yours truly,



                                                                    Albert Fried Jr., Chairman





Receipt and agreement acknowledged
on this       day of                 , 1998


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3125 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3125

   To require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
report to the Congress semiannually on the number of firearms transfers 
  resulting from the failure to complete a background check within 3 
business days, and the procedures followed after it is discovered that 
 a firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is ineligible to 
                           receive a firearm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2015

 Ms. Jackson Lee (for herself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
    Honda, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, and Mr. Cummings) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
report to the Congress semiannually on the number of firearms transfers 
  resulting from the failure to complete a background check within 3 
business days, and the procedures followed after it is discovered that 
 a firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is ineligible to 
                           receive a firearm.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accidental Firearms Transfers 
Reporting Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. FBI REPORT ON FIREARMS TRANSFERS RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE TO 
              COMPLETE A BACKGROUND CHECK WITHIN 3 BUSINESS DAYS, AND 
              THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED AFTER IT IS DISCOVERED THAT A 
              FIREARM TRANSFER HAS BEEN MADE TO A TRANSFEREE WHO IS 
              INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A FIREARM.

    Within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and 
every 6 months thereafter, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
Senate a written report on--
            (1) the number of proposed firearm transfers--
                    (A) about which a person licensed under chapter 44 
                of title 18, United States Code, contacted the national 
                instant criminal background check system established 
                under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
                Prevention Act;
                    (B) with respect to which the system failed to 
                respond to the licensee within 3 business days; and
                    (C) which were completed in the period covered by 
                the report; and
            (2) the procedures followed after it is discovered that a 
        firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is 
        ineligible to receive a firearm.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20016 Conference Calendar

MELVIN ALEXANDER PAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RISSIE OWENS, Chair-Woman, Board of Pardons and Paroles; LINDA GARCIA, Board Member, Board of Pardons and Paroles; LYNN RUZICKA, Board of Pardons and Paroles; CHARLES SPEIER, Texas Parole Board Member, Individually and in their Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-993

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Melvin Alexander Payton, Texas prisoner # 227125, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Payton asserted that he had a liberty interest in his release on parole, that the defendants refused to release him on parole, and that the parole hearing was defective.No. 06-20016 -2- The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Payton’s complaint on the bases (1) that all defendants were immune from liability based on absolute immunity or Eleventh Amendment immunity, and (2) that Payton has no liberty interest in parole that is protected by the Due Process Clause. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Madison v. Parker , 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997); Orellana v. Kyle , 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995); Hulsey v.
Owens , 63 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1995). This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is dismissed. 5TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of Payton’s lawsuit as frivolous constitute two strikes for purposes of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Payton that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
OAR Box 1834 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

36) IV-E-09 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:35 PM Sheet 36 of 61 

p.1 
J>*osr\ 

5» 

P_2. 

\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY /U - &~QC\ 

I 

if ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MAR 7 199* 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Phone Conversation with the American 

petroleum Institute (API) regarding the Fuels 

and Fuel Additives (F/FA) Rulemaking 

FROM: Glenn W. Passavant, Chief )/U4u^u)jjyJ>Ai&JZU?=J\ 

Special Regulatory Projects Branch 

TO: Public Docket A-90-07 

On March 3, 1994 EPA and API representatives held a brief 

conference call regarding the Fuels and Fuel Additives NPRM. API 

was represented by Dr. Robert Drew, Anita Ducca, and David 

Mongillo. EPA was represented by Glenn Passavant, Judith Gray, 

Ines Figueroa, and Kent Helmer. 

API's phone call to EPA was prompted by their internal 

discussions following our meeting of January 25, 1994 and their 

review of EPA's February 24, 1994 Federal Register notice 

reopening the comment period on several key issues. 

Dr. Drew expressed serious concern that the F/FA testing 

program as proposed would be difficult to implement and unlikely 

to produce useful results in many situations. He was especially 

concerned that testing of oxygenated fuels would lead to similar 

results as for base fuels alone. He agreed that health effects 

test data is not available for all the endpoints proposed by EPA 

for either unleaded gasoline or the various gasoline/oxygenate 

blends, but suggested that testing of each gasoline/oxygenate 

was not necessary if the worst case oxygenate could be 

identified based on neat oxygenate health effects information. 

We encouraged him to develop other specific suggestions and 

submit them in his comments to the recent Federal Register 

notice.