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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1639

In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:22-cv-00019-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: September 12, 2022 Decided: September 29, 2022

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1639 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering judgment for 

Hairston in his suit currently pending in district court. We conclude that Hairston is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Because Hairston may raise his claims in his currently pending 

suit, the relief sought by Hairston is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1639 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000081033
<NAME> PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   11,187,431
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    420,798
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,392,790
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,555,929
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,556,948
<COMMON>                                     2,563,003
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      594,395
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,372,729
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               4,530,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          360,000
<PREFERRED>                                    324,994
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,586,268
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 567,316
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     53,111
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               4,135,132
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               14,556,948
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    5,707,245
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           325,576<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   4,388,248
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   4,711,743
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        995,502
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              13,052
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,008,554
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       406,869
<NET-INCOME>                                   616,964
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     34,236
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  582,728
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       502,200
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      357,584
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       1,325,001
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<CAPTION>
<F1>State Income Taxes of $2,062 and Federal Income Taxes for Other Income of
$2,081 were incorporated into this line item for FDS purposes.  In the
referenced financial statements, State Income Taxes are included in Taxes -
Other and Federal Income Taxes for Other Income are included in Other Income - 
Miscellaneous.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021138EN.01003702.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/37

---

Action brought on 29 January 2021 — TEAG v Commission

(Case T-56/21)

(2021/C 138/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TEAG Thüringer Energie AG (Erfurt, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/Innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/Innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);

| — | order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.

---
Exhibit
32.2





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
CHDT Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Laurie Holtz, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Laurie
Holtz


Laurie
Holtz


Chief
Financial Officer, Director


(Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)








May 14,
2008








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 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                       [LETTERHEAD - RYDER SCOTT COMPANY]



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8


                      Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

     As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby
consents to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 2 to
Registration Statement on Form S-4, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about April 29, 2003, of information from our reserve reports
for 3TEC Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2002, December 31, 2001 and
December 31, 2000. We further consent to references to our firm under the
subsection Experts and in the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 2,
2003 in regards to reserve reporting as of December 31, 2002.



                                         /s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
April 29, 2003
Order entered December 4, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00754-CV

LOUELLA CLANTON, Appellant

V.

MARKOSE K. MARKOSE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00664-A

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 30, 2018 motion requesting a sixty-five day 

extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent that appellant shall file a 

brief by January 7, 2019. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1246

___________________________

Lisa Truong

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Collins Aerospace System; Seyfarth Shaw, LLP; Rosemount Aerospace Inc.,

doing business as UTC Aerospace Systems

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: July 26, 2024

Filed: August 1, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Lisa Truong appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of her pro se employment

action for insufficient service of process. After careful review of the record and the

parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the action. See Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 829-30

(8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS, THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,010
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,192
<PP&E>                                          18,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,722
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,987
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,815
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (383)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,056)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,780)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,276)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,276)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Submitted September 28,

affirmed December 14, 2016

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*LEANNE ELAINE HARVEY, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Lane County Circuit Court

201415536; A159601

385 P3d 89

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily R Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Silsby,*282 Or App 104, 113, 386 P3d 172 (2016).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of UST Liquidating Corporation. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Barry S. Rosenstein, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
the Company.
 /s/ Barry S. Rosenstein
Co-Chairman of Board of Directors
February 23, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7030

LEE THOMAS RIVERS, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

GLENN CAMPBELL, Sheriff, Darlington County

Sheriff Department; CALVIN JACKSON,

Investigator, Darlington County Sheriff

Department; L. C. BRADDOCK, Investigator,

Darlington County Sheriff Department; J. C.

MCLEOD, Investigator, Darlington County

Sheriff Department,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-05-708-3)

Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Thomas Rivers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lee Thomas Rivers, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without

prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Rivers v. Campbell, No. CA-05-708-3 (D.S.C. June 15,

2005). We deny Appellant’s request to substitute counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,039)
<INVENTORY>                                     74,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,065
<PP&E>                                         134,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                (69,094)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,752
<BONDS>                                        523,041
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           593
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,724)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,478
<SALES>                                        189,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,019
<CGS>                                          102,183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (200)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (28,599)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             2,997,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,744,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     966,000
<PP&E>                           119,844,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   (12,932,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   112,619,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              5,654,000
<BONDS>                           36,889,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                         107,672,000
<OTHER-SE>                       (37,596,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     112,619,000
<SALES>                           27,022,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  27,893,000
<CGS>                              9,577,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     16,569,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     137,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 4,800,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,387,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (473,000)
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       5,914,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .64


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-598]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-170-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

January 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 27, 1996, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944 filed in 
Docket No. CP97-170-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, and 
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for approval and permission to construct a 
delivery facility, under the blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 
CP83-21-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all 
as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    CIG states that it proposes to construct a point of delivery to be 
located in Las Animas County, Colorado. CIG further states that the 
facility will consist of a two-inch meter run and facilities 
appurtenant thereto for the delivery of natural gas to Consolidated 
Industrial Service (Consolidated), a producer, for start up fuel gas 
for Consolidated's compression facility. CIG asserts that the new 
facility will be capable of delivering up to 1,000 Mcf per day.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Section 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activities shall be deemed to be 
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a 
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-598 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M