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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 has

responded, 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 burden

of 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 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
#### Burling, Respondent, vs. Burling, Appellant.

*April 9*

May *7, 1957.*

*613For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *A. D. Sutherland*of Fond du Lac.

*614For the respondent there was a brief by *Lehner & Lehner*of Princeton, and oral argument by *Philip Lehner, Sr.*

Fairchild, J.

At common law, and in early years under the code, a plaintiff had the absolute right to- discontinue an action before or after issue joined and without leave of court. *Bertschy v. McLeod,*32 Wis. 205, 210. Later decisions, however, recognize certain qualifications upon plaintiff’s right to discontinue. Leave to discontinue may be denied, in the discretion of the court, if the rights of defendant, third parties, or the public will be substantially prejudiced by discontinuance. *State ex rel. Milwaukee v. Ludwig,*106 Wis. 226, 233, 82 N. W. 158; *School District v. Clifcorn,*133 Wis. 465, 467, 112 N. W. 1099; *Anderson v. Horlick’s Malted Milk Co.*137 Wis. 569, 572, 119 N. W. 342; *Guinther v. Milwaukee,*217 Wis. 334, 258 N. W. 865. In a divorce action it has been held that plaintiff husband was not entitled to an unconditional discontinuance, but the court had discretion to require him to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in defense of the action as a condition. *Schulz v. Schulz,*128 Wis. 28, 31, 107 N. W. 302.

Because plaintiff’s right to discontinue is not absolute, and it is the duty of the court to exercise discretion, we consider that a plaintiff’s motion for dismissal should be heard upon notice. There was no notice to- defendant in the case before us, and the order of dismissal must therefore be reversed. We conclude that plaintiff’s motion for dismissal will still be before the circuit court, to be heard upon notice. Defendant will thus have an opportunity to present her position to the circuit court. She has asserted here that she is prejudiced by the dismissal because (1) her motion that plaintiff be adjudicated in contempt has not been decided, (2) she has had no opportunity to refute charges made against her in connection with plaintiff’s motion for a blood test, and (3) she *615has not been awarded costs. We leave the merits of these assertions to the circuit court.

The notice of appeal included the “failure” of the circuit court to act on two matters. In a proper case, upon proper application for exercise of the superintending control of this court over others, an appropriate writ may be issued compelling a circuit court to dispose of a pending matter. Appeals are taken from orders or judgments. An “appeal” from inaction accomplishes nothing, and only the order of dismissal is before us on this appeal.

*By the Court.*— Order reversed, cause remanded for further proceedings upon plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.
---

Exhibit 99.21

CONSENT OF GEOLOGIST

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate for the Mutanga
Uranium Project, Zambia, Africa dated September 12, 2013 and (2) all other
references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by reference in
the registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.



Dated: March 12, 2015



/s/ Malcolm
TitleyMalcolm Titley, B.Sc., MAusIMM, MAIG CSA Global (UK) Ltd.

---
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2966

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit retaliation

and confidentiality policies relating to disclosure of employee wages,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. EDWARDS, and Mr. ROTH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit

retaliation and confidentiality policies relating to disclosure of employee wages, 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 ‘‘Wage Awareness Pro5 tection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITED ACTS.

7 (a) PROHIBITION ON RETALIATION AND CONFIDEN8 TIALITY POLICIES.—Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor

9 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended—
2

•S 2966 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para2 graph (6); and

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol4 lowing:

5 ‘‘(4) It shall be unlawful for any person—

6 ‘‘(A) to discharge or in any other manner dis7 criminate against any employee because such

8 employee—

9 ‘‘(i) has made a charge, assisted, or par10 ticipated in any manner in an investigation,

11 hearing, or other proceeding under this sub12 section; or

13 ‘‘(ii) has inquired about, discussed, or oth14 erwise disclosed the wages of the employee, or

15 another employee who is not covered by a con16 fidentiality policy that is lawful under subpara17 graph (B); or

18 ‘‘(B) to make or enforce a written or oral con19 fidentiality policy that prohibits an employee from

20 inquiring about, discussing, or otherwise disclosing

21 the wages of the employee or another employee, ex22 cept that nothing in this subparagraph shall be

23 construed—

24 ‘‘(i) to prohibit an employer from making

25 or enforcing such a confidentiality policy, for an
3

•S 2966 IS

1 employee who regularly, in the course of car2 rying out the employer’s business, obtains infor3 mation about the wages of other employees,

4 that prohibits the employee from inquiring

5 about, discussing, or otherwise disclosing the

6 wages of another employee, except that an em7 ployee may discuss or otherwise disclose the

8 employee’s own wages; and

9 ‘‘(ii) to require the employer to disclose an

10 employee’s wages.

11 ‘‘(5) For purposes of sections 16 and 17, a violation

12 of paragraph (4) shall be treated as a violation of section

13 15(a)(3), rather than as a violation of this section.’’.

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6(d)(3) of

15 the Fair Labor Standands Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.

16 206(d)(3) is amended by inserting ‘‘(other than paragraph

17 (4))’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’.

Æ
Exhibit
99.13





GDSE
Consulting
 1257579 Canada
Ltd. trading as GDSE Consulting








46
Blazing Star Street
☎
+1 416 294
4773East Gwillimbury,
Ontario
✉
kgeol@live.caCanada, L9N
0S1











CONSENT OF GEOLOGIST


Ladies and
Gentlemen:





The undersigned
hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigned’s
name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled “Technical Report with an Updated Mineral Resource
Estimate for the Midwest Property, Northern Saskatchewan,
Canada” dated March 26, 2018, and (2) all other references to
the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.








Dated: March 13,
2019





(signed) “David
Keller”


__________________________


G. David Keller,
P. Geo.


11257579 Canada
Ltd.
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services
provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement, dated October 3, 2012, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated October 8, 2012, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS
Series 2012-4US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Karleen Munns, am a Director of Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (the Servicer).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the period from October 11, 2012 (date of issuance of the SMART ABS Series 2012-4US Trust) through March 31,
2013 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout
the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 June 2013



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Karleen Munns            
|Karleen Munns
Director       
|                             
|Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of CMR Mortgage Fund II, LLC(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30,2008 (the “Report”), I, James Gala, Chief Executive Officer of California Mortgage andRealty, Inc., the manager of the Registrant, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: March 24, 2009 | /s/ James Gala                                          |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | James Gala                                              |
|                       | Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of |
|                       | California                                              |
|                       | Mortgage  and Realty, Inc., the Manager of         |
|                       | the  Registrant                                         |

 

----
Exhibit 10.16


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


TO


CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE DATED May 8, 2014


 


This Amendment, effective as of May 12, 2014, is to that
certain Convertible Debenture (the "Debenture") dated May 8, 2014 of Players Network Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Borrower")
in favor of Group 10 Holdings LLC ("Holder").


 


In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained
and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Debenture
as follows with immediate effect:


 


		1.	In Section 2.2, in sentence nine "Three Cents (0.03)" are deleted and replaced by "Four
and a half (0.045)"



 


		2.	Holder hereby represent and warrants that it has made no previous assignment of the Debenture,
in whole or in part, and remains the sole owner of all legal and beneficial right in, to and under the Debenture.



 


		3.	The parties will promptly deliver a copy of this Amendment to Borrower's
stock transfer agent and instruct the transfer agent to honor the terms of this Amendment.



 


		4.	Except as amended by this Amendment, the Debenture shall remain in effect as written.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties
have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


 


 


Players Network INC.


 


 


By /s/ Mark Bradley


Name: Mark Bradley


Title: CEO


 


 


 


 


GROUP 10 HOLDINGS, INC.


 


 


By /s/ Adam Wasserman


Adam Wasserman, Manager
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 16, 2014

NO. 03-11-00703-CV

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Appellant

v.

American Legion Knebel Post 82, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the summary judgment signed by the district court on October 14, 2011. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the district court’s summary judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s 

summary judgment and remands the case for further proceedings. We affirm the district court’s 

partial denial of Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction. The appellee 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                       SATELITES MEXICANOS, S.A. DE C.V.

          COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES
                          (IN THOUSANDS OF US DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       PERIOD FROM
                                                                                       NOVEMBER 17,
                                                           YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,      1997 TO
                                                           ------------------------    DECEMBER 31,
                                                              1999          1998           1997
                                                           ----------    ----------    ------------
<S>                                                        <C>           <C>           <C>
EARNINGS:
Loss before income tax, minority interest and
  extraordinary loss.....................................   $(40,987)     $(17,206)      $(2,003)
Add: Interest expense....................................     67,325        52,119        14,792
                                                            --------      --------       -------
  Earnings...............................................     26,338        34,910        12,789
                                                            --------      --------       -------

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense.........................................     67,325        52,119        14,792
Add: Capitalized interest................................      1,560        20,500         2,909
                                                            --------      --------       -------
  Fixed charges..........................................     68,885        72,619        17,701
                                                            --------      --------       -------
Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges............   $ 42,547      $ 37,709       $ 4,912
                                                            ========      ========       =======
</TABLE>
#### Barker, Appellant, v. Retail Credit Company, Respondent.

*November 30, 1959*

January *5, 1960.*

*665For the appellant there were briefs and oral argument by *John J. Byrnes*of Elkhorn.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Kenney, Korf & Pfeil*of Elkhorn, and oral argument by *Richard H. Pfeil.*

Per Curiam.

Mr, Justice Fairchild, Mr. Justice Hallows, and Mr. Justice Dieterich are of the opinion that the order should be reversed because they deem the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish that the report transmitted to the insurance company is conditionally privileged. This is because there is no allegation that the insurance company had requested the defendant to furnish it with such report. Mr. Justice Broadfoot, Mr. Justice Brown, and Mr. Justice Currie are of the opinion that the complaint does sufficiently allege facts to establish the existence of conditional privilege, and would affirm the order. The court being equally divided, under the applicable rule of the court, the order is affirmed.

The court deems it advisable to state that there is no division of opinion that a report of the nature alleged in the complaint, made by a mercantile agency to an insurance company at the latter’s request, is conditionally privileged. 36 Am. Jur., Mercantile Agencies, p. 184, sec. 11, and annotation entitled, “Libel and slander: Report of mercantile agency as privileged,” 30 A. L. R. (2d) 776, 777.

Martin, C. J., took no part.
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Great Lakes REIT (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

|Date: March 10, 2004 |                   |  |                        
|-------------------- | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                     | /s/RICHARD A. MAY
|                     | Name:             |  | Richard A. May         
|                     | Title:            |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     | /s/JAMES HICKS   
|                     | Name:             |  | James Hicks            
|                     | Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Annual Report or as
a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
S. 2977

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and museum in the vicinity

of the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to ensure the protection

and interpretation of the paleontology discoveries made at the lake and to develop

a trail system for the lake for use by pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MUSEUM, DIAMOND VALLEY

LAKE, HEMET, CALIFORNIA.

(a) ASSISTANCE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTER AND

MUSEUM.—The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into an agreement with an appropriate entity for the purpose of sharing costs

incurred to design, construct, furnish, and operate an interpretive

center and museum, to be located on lands under the jurisdiction

of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, intended

to preserve, display, and interpret the paleontology discoveries made

at and in the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake, near Hemet,

California, and to promote other historical and cultural resources

of the area.

(b) ASSISTANCE FOR NONMOTORIZED TRAILS.—The Secretary

shall enter into an agreement with the State of California, a political

subdivision of the State, or a combination of State and local public

agencies for the purpose of sharing costs incurred to design, construct, and maintain a system of trails around the perimeter of

the Diamond Valley Lake for use by pedestrians and nonmotorized

vehicles.

(c) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall require the

other parties to an agreement under this section to secure an

amount of funds from non-Federal sources that is at least equal

to the amount provided by the Secretary.

(d) TIME FOR AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into the

agreements required by this section not later than 180 days after

the date on which funds are first made available to carry out

this section.
S. 2977—2

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated not more than $14,000,000 to carry out this

section.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Timeline of ORNL Science