alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2531** 

In re: KEVIN WAYNE MCDANIELS , Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted : April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Kevin Wayne McDaniels , Petitoner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Wayne McDaniels petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the South Carolina state court to dismiss criminal charges against him

. We conclude that McDaniels is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circums tances. Kerr v. U .S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, 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)

. Moreover, t his court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdicti on to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The relief sought by McDaniels is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny McDaniels’ motion for bail or release pending appeal as well as his motion to amend exhibits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the material s before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### CITY OF GREENSBORO and STATE v. J. H. SHIELDS and another.

*■€hief Officers of Cities and Towns*— Criminal *Jurisdiction*— Prose*cution under City Ordinance.*

1. A Justice of the Peace has final jurisdiction over affrays, on compliance with the required preliminary conditions.

3. A chief officer of a city or town has the same criminal jurisdiction within the corporate limits as is given to Justices of the Peace ; but the statutory requisites which confer final jurisdiction must be complied with.

•'3. A prosecution under a city ordinance must fail if no ordinance is set out in the proceedings as having been violated. '

CumiNAL Action heard at Fall Term, 1877, of Guilporu .'Superior Court, before Buxton, *J.*

The Mayor of Greensboro issued a warrant for an affray :against the defendants in the above entitled action, and upon the trial before him, they were adjudged guilty and a -fine imposed, from which judgment the defendant, Shields, ^appealed; and His Honor upon motion of defendant’s counsel dismissed the case, for that, the Mayor had no jurisdiction, nor was the particular city ordinance alleged to have been violated, specifically set out in the warrant; and from this ruling, *Staples,*City Attorney, appealed.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller £ Ashe*and *J N. Staples,*for the ■City of Greensboro.

*Mr. J. T.*Morehead, for the defendant.

Bynum J.

The chief officer of cities and towns has the same criminal jurisdiction within the city limits, as is given to Justices of the Peace; and Justices of the Peace have final jurisdiction over affrays, the offence specified in this-*418proceeding, on a compliance with certain preliminary conditions. Bat. Rev. ch. 83 § 115, and ch. 111 § 30.

If therefore this action had been commenced in the name-of the State only, and in compliance with the statutory requisites which confer final jurisdiction, it would have been lawful for the Mayor to try and punish these offenders as ho has done.

But as a State prosecution, the conviction was improper because no jurisdiction had been acquired, for the reason--that no complaint had been filed by the party injured, and collusion with the accused had not been negatived. Bat. Rev. ch. 33 § 119.

As a city prosecution, it must also fail because no ordinance is set out in the proceedings as having been violated. One cannot be criminally convicted without an accusation., an offence charged

No error.

Per Oueiam. Judgment affirmed.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM July 2021

 

Waste Transfer (634) 

I.7 (-) Nutrients and organics 

to ground and surface water

I.10 (+) Dissolved 

oxygen surface waters

C.4 (+) Aquatic health for 

humans and domestic and 

wild animals

I.2 (+) Plant growth and 

productivity 

I.9 (-) Noxious 

algal growth

I.8 (+) Meeting water 

quality standards

I.6 (+) Agribusiness

C.3 (+) Stream fauna, 

e.g., fish, invertebrates

Nutrient Management (590)

Initial setting: AFO is

established and needs a 

means of transferring 

animal waste runoff to a 

storage or treatment facility

I.4 (+) Economic 

benefit to farmer

I.3 (+) Soil 

health

C.1 (-) Habitat suitability for 

humans

D.1 (+) Perceived 

nuisance

I.5 (-) 

Fertilizer

2. Land application

D.4 (+) Conveyance 

structures

D.5 (+) Irrigation 

equipment

Waste Storage Facility (313)

Pumping Plant (533)

Sprinkler System (442)

1. Movement to storage

I.1 (+) Cost to farmers

C.2 (+/-) Income stability 

(individuals and community)

Start

D.6 (+) Soil nutrients

D.2 (+) 

Odors

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Associated practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Mitigating practice

Waste Separation Facility (632)

Waste Treatment (629)

D.3 (+) Infrastructure and 

operational costs
1 

### Collins, Kathleen

From: Collins, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:16 PM To: Bobby Brunoe; Deepak Sehgal; James Holt; Jason Fent on; Jason Robison; Ken Clark; Kris Fischer; Margaret Corvi; Michael Karnosh; Mike Kenn edy; Mike Wilson; Paul Ward; Peter Wakeland; Phil Rigdon; Robin Harris Cc: Soscia, Marylou; Chung, Angela Subject: Consultation Offer on EPA's proposed rulemaking to Revise Oregon's aquatic life criteria for copper and cadmium Attachments: Tribal Consultation_Proposed Fed Rulemaking_Rev Frs wter Aquatc Life Cri_Acute CadChronic Copper.pdf



## Good Afternoon,

Enclosed is a letter being mailed out today that ex tends an offer of tribal consultation on an upcoming EPA rulemaking. In early 2016, EPA will b e proposing to promulgate freshwater aquatic life criteria for acute cadmium and acute a nd chronic copper for the state of Oregon.

A conference call will be held on December 15th fro m 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM to discuss the rulemaking and answer any questions you may have. The call-in number is:

866-299-3188, the conference code is 206 553 1256#.

If you are unable to participate in the conference call but would like to discuss the rulemaking please feel free to call me at 206-553-2108. (Plea se note that I will be out of the office from December 21 st 

## through January 8 th 

## ). Thanks,



## Kathleen Collins
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, OWW-191 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-553-2108
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20371

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TARLETHA DIANE REED Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CR-0229-3)

 

January 23, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reed challenges her sentence on the grounds that she was

entitled to discovery at sentencing and that the Mandatory Victim

Restitution Act is unconstitutional. Reed’s arguments are without

merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Phoenix International Ltd., Inc. and to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-19121, Form S-8 No. 333-30797 and
Form S-8 No. 333-57559) of our report dated February 7, 2000, except for Note
13 as to which the date is February 15, 2000, included in the 1999 Annual
Report to Shareholders of Phoenix International Ltd., Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Phoenix
International Ltd., Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 24, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              83                     107
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    66                      78
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     149                     185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         4,890                   4,890
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,741)                 (4,705)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       149                     185
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    36                  13,516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (36)                (13,516)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (36)                (13,516)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (36)                (13,516)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
# C_2005045EN.01002004.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/20

---

Removal from the register of Case C-238/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 45/44)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 2 December 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-238/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, de 24.7.04.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF PAINCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

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 of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Randy Lubinsky, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark Szporka, as Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Randy Lubinsky                     
|Randy Lubinsky, Chief Executive Officer



Date: May 13, 2005



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark Szporka                                    
|Mark Szporka, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer



Date: May 13, 2005







1
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection
with the Annual Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ulrich Michel,
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 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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|January 21, 2016 | /s/
    Ulrich Michel
|---------------- | ---------------------
|                 | Name:                
|                 | Title:               
|                 |                      
|                 |                      



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 Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the
      “Company”) certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the accompanying Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








/s/Jan
      W.
      Clark





Jan
      W.
      Clark


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


March
      6,
      2007








This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document,
      and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason
      other
      than as specifically required by law.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Onyx Software Canada Corporation, an Ontario subsidiary;
Onyx Software UK Limited, a United Kingdom subsidiary;
Onyx Software Asia Pte. Ltd., a Singapore subsidiary;
Onyx Software Australia PTY, Ltd., an Australian subsidiary;
Onyx Software GmbH, a German subsidiary;
Onyx Software Professional Services GmbH, a German subsidiary;
Onyx CSN Computer Holding GmbH, a German subsidiary;
Onyx Software Hong Kong Ltd., a Hong Kong subsidiary;
Onyx Software Co., Ltd., a Japanese subsidiary (58%);
# C_2005092EN.01003202.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/32

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3730 — Lukoil/Teboil/Suomen Petrooli)

(2005/C 92/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3730. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3730. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2004300EN.01005002.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/50

---

Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Benedicta Miguelez Herreras against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-407/04)

(2004/C 300/97)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by Benedicta Miguelez Herreras, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and Valérie Landes, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award her only one Directorate-General priority point for the 2003 promotion period, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting her informal appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award her only one Directorate-General priority point for the 2003 promotion period, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting her informal appeal;

| — | annul the Appointing Authority's decision to award her a total of 23 points for the 2003 promotion year, the list of merit of Grade C2 officials for the promotion year 2003, the list of officials promoted to Grade C1 in the promotion year 2003 and, in any case, the decision not to enter her name in those lists; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Appointing Authority's decision to award her a total of 23 points for the 2003 promotion year, the list of merit of Grade C2 officials for the promotion year 2003, the list of officials promoted to Grade C1 in the promotion year 2003 and, in any case, the decision not to enter her name in those lists;

| — | annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting her complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting her complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward in this case are similar to those put forward in Case T-132/04 José Luis Buendía Sierra v Commission.

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

D. Direct effect

#. Created by 

practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Dam (402)

Critical Area Planting (342)

Initial setting: All sites where stormwater runoff causes 

or may cause undesirable downstream flooding, 

sedimentation or channel degradation and/or degradation 

of surface or ground water quality if left untreated.

Control the quantity and quality of 

stormwater runoff.

1.

Start

Diversion (362)

Pond (378)

D.5 (-) Water Quality 

Degradation-Excessive Sediment 

in Surface Water

D.4 (-) Soil Erosion- Soil Erosion-Excessive 

bank erosion from streams, shorelines or water 

conveyance channels

Grassed Waterway (412)

D.3 (-) Soil ErosionEphemeral Gully

D.6 (-) Excess WaterRunoff, Flooding, or 

Ponding

Grade Stabilization Structure (410)

D.7 (+) Excess 

Water-Seeps

Access Control (472)

C.1 (+/-) Income and income stability 

(individuals & community)

C.2 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters C.3 (-) Water quantity

Sediment Basin (350)

Stormwater Runoff Control (570)

D.1 (+) Cost of installation 

and maintenance

D.2 (-) Soil Erosion-Sheet 

and Rill Erosion

I.1 (+/-) Net 

Return

I.2 (+) Water Quality of runoff: (-) 

Sediment (-) Nutrient (-) organics, 

and (-) pathogens.

I.3 (-) Water Quantity; (-) Sediment 

accumulation reducing storage in water 

bodies; (+) Sediment accumulation reducing 

storage in outlet water conveyance 

channels.