alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Beverly L. HENNAGER, Petitioner.

No. 17-1498

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Beverly L. Hennager, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Beverly L. Hennager has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which she asks this court to order the district court to disburse to her earnings derived from the sale of certain property, and to have voided various district court orders with which she disagrees. We conclude that Hennager is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426*U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, however. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 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).

It is clear that Hennager is using mandamus as a substitute for appeal and, in any event, she has not established a clear right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny as moot her motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
<PAGE>

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NaviSite, Inc.

   We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-89987 on Form S-8 of NaviSite, Inc. of our report dated September 19, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of NaviSite, Inc. and subsidiary as
of July 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the fiscal years in
the three-year period ended July 31, 2000, and our report dated September 19,
2000 relating to the consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports
are included in the July 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
October 30, 2000
Request for Information

Keith Barnett

to:

leslie.white

10/23/2009 11:57 AM

Cc:

gina.henry, satish.sheth

Show Details

Dear Ms. White:

I have two items I need to bring to your attention.

1. I have been trying to get clari fication on an issue related to the

section 114 request sent to your company on May 8, 2007. (I have attached

a copy of the cover letter to that request for your connivence). In

responding to this request, you provided information on the following

pla nts: Brooksville; Fairborne; Lyons; Wampum; and Knoxville. In your

response you indicated that the other Cemex facilities were separately

incorporated. I called Regina Henry several months ago and asked for

clarification of how many separate corporat e entities Cemex had in the

U.S. and which plants were in each of these entities. I also made the

same request to Satish Sheth in late September. I still have no response

to this question.

2. I have obtained a copy of an emissions tes t performed at the Cemex

plant in New Braunfels, Texas in May 2005 where you tested Selective

Non

- Catlytic Reduction for control of NOx emissions. In order to use

these data in our ongoing review of the Portland Cement NSPS, I need to

request a copy d irectly from your company in a non

- confidential form.

This issue was also discussed with Satish Sheth in late September.

Unfortunately, the information outlined above is important to our ongoing

rulemakings for Portland cement, both of which have court ordered

deadlines. If I don't receive a response by the end of next week, I will

have no other choice but to send a formal information collection request

under the authority of section 114.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243

- 02

Rese arch Triangle Park, NC 27711

919

- 541

- 5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
#### IN RE: Michael STARR, Appellant

2016-1285

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 13, 2016

*799Howard Leib, Howard Leib, Esq., PC, Ithaca, NY, argued for appellant.

Christina Hieber, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas L. Casagrande, Robert J. McManus.

(O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Paula FESENMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI; Taliaferro & Browne; Pars Engineering, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-2997

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2017

Filed: April 20, 2017

Paula Fesenmeyer, Pro Se

Katherine A. Chandler, Saskia Jacobse, Dustin Eli Johnson, City Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee City of Kansas City

Charnissa Holliday-Scott, James W. Tip-pin, James W. Tippin & Associates, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Tal-iaferro & Browne

Jeffrey Douglas Zimmerman, Shawnee Mission, KS, for Defendant-Appellee PARS Engineering, Inc.

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this removed action in which Paula Fesenmeyer asserted claims under Missouri law and The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. She appeals after the district court,1 inter alia, denied her motion to remand the case back to state court, dismissed her federal claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

As an initial matter, we conclude that the only issue to be considered on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Fesenmeyer's motion to remand the case back to the state court. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that points not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived). We further conclude that the motion to remand was appropriately denied. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (granting district courts *547original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”), 1441(A) (allowing defendant to remove action pending in state court to federal district court that has original jurisdiction over action), 1446 (describing procedure for removal of civil actions); In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2010) (applying de novo review to denial of remand). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas E. Mara
|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Thomas E. Mara Chief Executive
Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1233 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to James Megellas, 

formerly of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and most recently of Colleyville, 

Texas, before his death on April 2, 2020, for acts of valor on January 

28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. GROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. KIND, Mr. GALLAGHER, Ms. VAN DUYNE, 

Mr. STEIL, Mr. FITZGERALD, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. TIFFANY, 

and Mr. POCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor 

to James Megellas, formerly of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, 

and most recently of Colleyville, Texas, before his death 

on April 2, 2020, for acts of valor on January 28, 

1945, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War 

II. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1233 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL 

2 OF HONOR TO JAMES MEGELLAS FOR ACTS 

3 OF VALOR DURING BATTLE OF THE BULGE. 

4 (a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwith5 standing the time limitations specified in section 7274 of 

6 title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 

7 with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 

8 who served in the Armed Forces, the President may award 

9 the Medal of Honor under section 7271 of such title to 

10 James Megellas, formerly of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and 

11 most recently of Colleyville, Texas, before his death on 

12 April 2, 2020, for the acts of valor during World War II 

13 described in subsection (b). 

14 (b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

15 referred to in subsection (a) are the actions of James 

16 Megellas on January 28, 1945, in Herresbach, Belgium, 

17 during the Battle of the Bulge when, as a first lieutenant 

18 in the 82nd Airborne Division, he led a surprise and dev19 astating attack on a much larger advancing enemy force, 

20 killing and capturing a large number and causing others 

21 to flee, single-handedly destroying an attacking German 

22 Mark V tank with two hand-held grenades, and then lead23 ing his men in clearing and seizing Herresbach. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jake SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6184

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Jake Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*148Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jake Smith seeks to appeal his conviction and the 151-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aiding and abetting in the distribution of cocaine hydrochloride within 1000 feet of a protected location, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860 (2012). The criminal judgment against Smith was affirmed by this court by unpublished per curiam opinion filed on June 4, 2013, and the mandate in that appeal issued on June 26, 2013. *See United States v. Smith,*522 Fed.Appx. 182 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-4905). Because we have previously affirmed the district court’s judgment, this appeal is duplicative.

To the extent that Smith’s appellate filings could be construed as a challenge to this court’s previous opinion affirming the district court’s judgment, the time for filing a rehearing petition expired long ago. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) (“Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.”). Moreover, this court may recall its mandate to avoid injustice only in exceptional cases. *See Alphin v. Henson,*552 F.2d 1033, 1035 (4th Cir. 1977). “The sparing use of the power demonstrates it is one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.” *Calderon v. Thompson,*523 U.S. 538, 550, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Smith’s is not an exceptional case and, thus, the district court’s judgment is not subject to relitigation before this court.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
T.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1854

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 6, 2018.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and James Odell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*1010Affirmed. *See* § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing that a person "is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer"); *Polite v. State*, 973 So.2d 1107, 1117 (Fla. 2007) (observing that section 776.051(1) abrogates the common law right in Florida to resist an illegal arrest with force, and "forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer") (quoting *Tillman v. State*, 934 So.2d 1263, 1269 (Fla. 2006) ); *M.H. v. State*, 936 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding criminal mischief is not a specific intent crime, but requires proof of an act that "is willful (intentional) and wrongful (with evil intent that injury or damage will or may be caused)"); *Mosher v. State*, 750 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (observing: "It is a well-established principle of law that the issue of felonious intent or state of mind of the defendant is generally a jury question that, in most instances, cannot be ascertained by direct proof, but must be inferred from the surrounding circumstances"). *See also**Crain v. State*, 894 So.2d 59, 71 (Fla. 2004) (observing: "[T]he weight of the evidence and the witnesses' credibility are questions solely for the jury. It is not this Court's function to retry a case or reweigh conflicting evidence submitted to the trier of fact").
#### Talia JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David V. BYRD, Chief District Court Judge; Jeanie R. Houston, District Court Judge; William F. Brooks, District Court Judge; Angela B. Puckett, District Court Judge; Renee M. Hauser, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1305

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 21, 2017

*220Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Talia Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing Johnson’s complaint without prejudice, and denying her motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s judgment was entered on January 20, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on March 9,2017. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 Johnson also filed a document seeking to appeal from the magistrate judge’s memorandum opinion and recommendation. Contrary to Johnson’s argument, this filing cannot serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) because the magistrate judge’s recommendation was clearly interlocutory and could not have been certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ, P. 54(b). *See In re Bryson,*406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005). In any event, even if Johnson had noted a timely appeal, she waived her right to appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's memorandum opinion and recommendation. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 819

- C V

Style: Cynthia Johnson v.

v

. Severino Family, LLC

Date motion filed * : December 17 , 2018

Type of motion: Motion to Dismiss

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

We strike appellant’s Motion to Dismiss because said motion is deficient for failing to comply with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9. 5 ( e). The Court will consider a Motion to

Dismiss that complies with the certificate of serv ice requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See id

.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ S herry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: __ January 15, 2019

_____
Jeffrey NEIDLINGER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Michele ADAMS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2303

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1

Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: Faulk, Scott (OST)

Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:10 AM

To: Gene Bieker (gbieker@cityofclovis.org)

Cc: Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Subject: Request for Community Comments

Attachments: Boutique.pdf; SeaPort.pdf

Dear Gene: 

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service situation at Clovis and give you an opportunity to submit

any comments for the record if you wish. In response to the notice of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., to terminate

its scheduled air transportation service at Clovis, the Department issued Order 2014-1-10, on January 14, 2014, 

to solicit proposals from all interested air carriers to provide service at Clovis. In response to that Order, we

received proposals from the Boutique Air, Inc. and SeaPort Airlines, Inc. 

Copies of those proposals are attached and may be accessed online through the Department’s Dockets

Management System at: http://www.regulations.gov/ by entering “DOT-OST-1996-1902” in the “Enter

Keyword or ID” field, so we will only briefly summarize the proposals here. 

Boutique Air, Inc. proposed 24 weekly nonstop round trips between Clovis and Dallas/Fort Worth International

Airport utilizing a 9-seat Pilatus PC-12 aircraft, at a requested annual subsidy rate of $3,888,274. 

SeaPort Airlines, Inc. proposed 12 weekly nonstop round trips between Clovis and Dallas Love Field Airport

utilizing a 9-seat Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft, at a requested annual subsidy rate of $2,813,992. 

We want to give you an opportunity to submit any formal comments for the record before we submit a 

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We request that you submit

any comments you may have as soon as possible, but in any case no later than March 20, 2014. We will 

carefully consider your comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a

decision. If you have any questions or if you find that you need additional time to draft your comments, please

let me know. 

Please send your comments to me at the following email address: EAS@dot.gov or by fax to 202-366-7838. If

you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at scott.faulk@dot.gov or 202-366-9967. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Faulk 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-9721
| ·   | The Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84281) pertaining to the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1997 Stock Option Plan, |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54590) pertaining to the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-119999) pertaining to the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. 2003 Long Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, and |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-164727) pertaining to the 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. 2003 Long Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, as amended and restated as of October 22, 2009; |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|