alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7344

In Re: MARC PIERRE HALL, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-95-5, CA-99-61-3) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Pierre Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marc Pierre Hall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to review and rule upon pleadings in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion filed on February 17, 1999. Hall asks this court to direct the district court to order the Government to respond to the supplements to pleadings he wishes to file, rule on his Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), claim after the Government hasresponded, and upon a favorable ruling, set bail and order transportation for him from prison in Texas to North Carolina. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burdenof showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Hall has not made such a showing. In a December 4, 2000, order issued by the district court, he received some of the relief he sought. The remainder of the relief he seeks is properly to be determined by the district court and does not warrant manda-3 mus relief. Accordingly, we deny Hall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his petition for mandamus relief. We dispense withoral 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4581

DONALD BENJAMIN PATE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CR-99-316)

Submitted: May 31, 2001

Decided: August 6, 2001

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

David P. McCann, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Scott

N. Schools, United States Attorney, Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Donald Pate was convicted by a jury of robbing a postal service letter carrier, 18 U.S.C. § 2114 (1994), and sentenced to sixty-three

months imprisonment. He appeals, claiming that the district court

erred in denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered

evidence. He also claims that the Government’s failure to produce

that evidence before trial denied him due process. 

Because we find that the evidence—certain employment records of

Pate and the victim, and handwritten investigators’ notes-would not

have resulted in Pate’s acquittal, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Pate’s motion for new trial under Fed. R. Crim.

P. 33. United States v. Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1190 (4th Cir. 1995);

United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1993). Further, we

find that Pate failed to establish a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83 (1963). Pate cannot show that he was prejudiced by the Government’s failure to disclose investigators’ notes containing the physical description of the robber because the description of the robber was

generally consistent with Pate’s physical characteristics. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Pate’s motion

for new trial and affirm Pate’s conviction and sentence. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. PATE
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00357-CR

TOSHA LADIACAY HARKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13689)

August 26, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
#### WADE & WADE, Appellants, v. SOVEREIGN CAMP OF THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD, Appellee.

No. 10332.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 22, 1938.

Aldridge George, of Beeville, for appellants.

Keys & Holt and Hayden W. Head, all of Corpus Christi, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

Affirmed without written opinion. See Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.

SMITH, C. J., being disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 397 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-757, K2024-50.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22704 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 on Form 10-Q for the three-month
period ending January 31, 2009 of Barricode, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Tom Delaney, Chairman, President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operation of the Company.


/s/ TOM DELANEY
____________________________________________
    Tom Delaney
    President, Secretary Treasurer,
    Principal Executive Officer,
    Principal Financial Officer and Director


Date: March 13, 2009
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE01184.A16

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B

.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 October 15, 2007
 Kitty Hawk, Inc.
  Delaware
    
    0001-32284
    
    75-2564006(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 1515 West 20th Street 
P.O. Box 612787
DFW International Airport, 
Texas
    
    75261(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (972) 456-2200
 NOT APPLICABLE
 
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 1.03 Bankruptcy or Receivership.
   Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 Exhibits.
 Exhibit Number
    
    DescriptionExhibit 99.1
    
    Press release, dated October 15, 2007, regarding the
Companys filings under the Bankruptcy Code.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  KITTY HAWK, INC.Date: October 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Steven E. MarkhoffName:
    Steven E. MarkhoffTitle:
    Corporate Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    DescriptionExhibit 99.1
    
    Press release, dated October 15, 2007, regarding the
Companys filings under the Bankruptcy Code.
* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

May 12, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 02-11008

____________

In The Matter Of: COLLEGE CONNECTION INC.,

Debtor.

______________________________________________________

DANIEL J. SHERMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellant,

versus

THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, now known as 7-Eleven Inc.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:02-CV-220-R

Before EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and DUVAL * , District Judge.** Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined t hat t his o pinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

-2- PER CURIAM: **

Daniel J. Sherman, the Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of debtor College

Connection, Inc. (“the Trustee”), appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s

take-nothing final judgment with respect to the Trustee’s claims against the Southland Corporati on,

now known as 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”). The Trustee contends that the bankruptcy court erred

in concluding that the agreement between the debtor an d 7-Eleven was not a viable executory

contract for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 365 at the time of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing because, inter

alia

, debtor’s sale of proprietary baked goods to 7-Eleven’s competitors was a material breach of that

agreement. The Trustee also argues that the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that the estate was

not entitled to recover from 7-Eleven on any theory asserted. Lastly, the Trustee contends that the

bankruptcy court abuse d it s discretion in admitting certain documents and expert testimony into

evidence and refusing to order compliance with particular subpoenas.

We have read the briefs, heard the arguments of counsel, and consulted the pertinent portions

of the record. On the basis of the applicable law and the record, we affirm essentially for the reasons

given by the district court.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3525 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3525

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award 
 grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out projects for the 
 purpose of reducing energy costs and increasing resilience to improve 
                               security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2015

  Mr. Engel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award 
 grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out projects for the 
 purpose of reducing energy costs and increasing resilience to improve 
                               security.

    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 ``Hospital Energy Conservation Act''.

SEC. 2. ENERGY CONSERVATION GRANT AND LOAN GUARANTEE PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish a pilot 
program to award grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out 
energy conservation projects for the purpose of--
            (1) significantly improving the energy efficiency of such 
        hospitals; and
            (2) encouraging onsite power generation and energy storage, 
        capable of operating independent of the grid, and providing 
        sufficient onsite emergency backup power for essential hospital 
        functions.
    (b) Number of Hospitals.--The Secretary shall award grants and loan 
guarantees under the pilot program to no more than 6 hospitals during 
the period described in subsection (f).
    (c) Applications.--A hospital seeking a grant or loan guarantee 
under the pilot program shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
Secretary may require.
    (d) Considerations.--In selecting a hospital to award a grant or 
loan guarantee to under the pilot program, the Secretary shall give 
special consideration to applications from such hospitals that can 
demonstrate that they are able to commence an energy conservation 
project more promptly.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``hospital'' and 
``energy conservation project'' have the meanings given such terms in 
section 391 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371).
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated for carrying out this section such sums as may be 
necessary for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, to be derived from funds 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated for related purposes.
                                 <all>
```
|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | 18      U.S.C. § 1350 |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   | AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

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

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

| /s/ Haig S. Bagerdjian       |
|------------------------------|
| Haig      S. Bagerdjian      |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
| November      12, 2010       |

----
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 GEORGE M. LOPEZ , 2 Worker-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 32,449 4 SANDIA PREPARATORY SCHOOL 5 and AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 6 COMPANY , 7 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 8 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 9 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge 10 Gerald A. Hanrahan 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Hale & Dixon, P.C. 14 Timothy S. Hale 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellees 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VANZI, Judge. 192 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has 2 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} DISMISSED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

_______________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 12
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. YUSUF DESHAW

N RE EVES, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 20-30247

D.C . Nos. 9:15-c r-00006-DLC -1 9:15-c r-00006-DLC
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Yusuf De sha

wn R e e v e s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his
m otion for a

se nte nc e re duc tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(1)(A). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w § 3582(c )(1) de c isions for a buse 

# FIL ED AUG 6 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of disc re tion, U nite d State

s v . Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th C ir. 2021), a nd we
a ffirm
. R e e ve s c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion by pla c ing m ore we ight on his pote

ntia l for future da

nge rousne ss tha

n his good c onduc t whilein prison, fa iling to c onside r the fa c tors se t forth in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a). Although the c ourt did not spe c ific a l ly m e ntion R e e ve s’ s c onduc t while inc arc e rate d, the
c ourt’ s e xpla

nation re fle c ts tha

t the c ourt c onside re d the § 3553(a) fa c tors a nd R e e ve s’ s a

rgum e nts, and c onc lude d tha t R e e ve s re m a ine d a

da nge r to the
c om m unity . U.S.S.G. § 1B 1
. 13(2); 18 U.S.C
. § 1342(g); se eUnite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ) (“ The distric t c ourt ne e d not tic k off e a c h of the § 3553(a) fa c tors to show tha t it ha s c onside re d the m .” ). C onside ring thefa c ts of R e e ve s ’ s offe nse , the c ourt’ s finding tha t R e e ve s pose d a
sa fe ty risk to thepublic wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. Se eUnite d State s v . Me rc adoMore n o , 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ In re vie wing for a buse of disc re tion . . . [w] e will re ve rse only

if the distric t c ourt re lie d on a n e rrone ous le ga l sta

nda rd
or c le arly e rrone ous findings of fac t.” ). In light of the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the d istric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing R e e v e s ’ s m otion. Se e Unite d State s v . Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th C ir. 2013). AFFIRM E D.
2
#### RUSSELL v. STATE.

No. 18195.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1936.

Davis, Avery & Wallace, of Center, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, punishment being assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The conviction was under what has been generally termed the “Dean Law,” (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666 et seq. as amended) which was repealed subsequent to the conviction, with the result that no law is now in existence supporting the conviction. See Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481, and many cases to the same effect.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DJO Finance LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, VickieL. Capps, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                                     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  July 31, 2009                                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                             |   |
| /s/  VICKIE L. CAPPS                                             |   |
| Vickie  L. Capps                                                 |   |
| Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

 

----