alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2086** 

I n R e: VAN ANTHONY ROSE , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 3:04

- cr - 00194

- RJC

- CH

- 1; 3:08

- cv - 00216

- RJC )

Submitted : December 7, 2010 Decided: Dec ember 30 , 2010

Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Van Anthony Rose , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Van Anthony Rose petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and to order the production of previously

- requested grand jury transcripts. We conclud e that Rose is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F. 3d 509, 516

- 17 (4t h 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).
Our review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that the district court entered a final order and judgment on September 27, 2010, in which it denied relief on Rose’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court recently decided Rose’s case, we deny Rose’s mandamus petition in part as moot. To the ext ent that Rose seeks an order compelling the production of grand jury transcripts, he fails to show that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Rose fails to explain why he needs the transcripts in his mandamus petition, and provided n o reason for his request in his motion3 before the district court
. See In re Braxton , 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating that petitioner seeking mandamus must establish that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought); In re Grand J ury Proceedings , 800 F.2d 1293, 1299 (4th Cir. 1986) (setting forth balancing test for petitioners seeking release of grand jury transcripts). Because
t he relief sought by Rose is not available by way of mandamus , we deny th is portion of his petition.
W e grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
Daniel GOMEZ-CORREA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2058

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Johnny SANFORD v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2018-KH-0659

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
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 on Form 10-K of MGE Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jeffrey C. Newman, 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.    /s/ Jeffrey C. NewmanJeffrey C. Newman
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer

Date: February 25, 2010
Sandeep MUNSHI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2295

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Traversing the wasteland: A framework for assessing ecological threats to drylands      

      December 18, 2019    

Drylands cover 41% of the Earth's terrestrial surface, play a critical role in global ecosystem function, and are home to over two billion people. Like other biomes, drylands face increasing pressure from global change, but many of these ecosystems are close to tipping points, which, if crossed, can lead to abrupt transitions and persistent degraded states. Their limited but variable precipitation, low soil fertility, and low productivity have given rise to a perception that drylands are wastelands, needing societal intervention to bring value to them. Negative perceptions of drylands synergistically combine with conflicting sociocultural values regarding what constitutes a threat to these ecosystems. In the present article, we propose a framework for assessing threats to dryland ecosystems and suggest we must also combat the negative perceptions of drylands in order to preserve the ecosystem services that they offer.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Sasha C Reed, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Southwest Biological Science Center

screed@usgs.gov

928-556-7534

## Related Content

#### Sasha C Reed, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Southwest Biological Science Center

screed@usgs.gov

928-556-7534

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Southwest Biological Science Center - Flagstaff, AZ, Headquarters          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7094

928-556-7092

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Colorado Plateau
                  - Arizona
                  -  Colorado
                  -  New Mexico
                  -  Utah

View All **
Exhibit 10.8

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
Credit Suisse Group:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-100523) on Form F-3 of Credit Suisse Group of our report dated February 21, 2003, except as to
notes 49 and 50, which are as of March 20, 2003 and except for the matters discussed in note 48, which are as of April 23, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Credit Suisse Group and subsidiaries (CSG) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2002.

Our
report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that CSG has modified for the financial year 2002 its accounting policy in relation to deferred taxation.

In
addition, our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states the accounting principles generally accepted in Switzerland vary in certain significant respects from accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America and that the application of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America would have affected shareholders' equity as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the results of operations for each of the three years then ended, to the extent summarized in Note 49 to the consolidated financial statements.

Also,
our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that CSG has restated its US GAAP reconciliations as of and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.

We
also consent to the use of our report incorporated by reference herein dated March 20, 2003, related to the consolidated financial statement schedules I, III and IV.

KPMG
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler SA

|/s/BRENDAN R. NELSONChartered Accountant |  | /s/PETER HANIMANNCertified Accountant
|---------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------

Zurich,
Switzerland

April
23, 2004

---
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





EXHIBIT
      32.1





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Xiom Corp. (the "Company") On Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Andrew B. Mazzone, Chief
      Executive and Chief Financial/Accounting  Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





i. The
      certifications required by Rule 13a-14(b) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b)) or Rule
      15d-14(b) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(b)) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of
      the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350).





ii. A
      certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed "filed" for
      purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the
      liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
      Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically
      incorporates it by reference.





/s/
      Andrew Mazzone  Andrew
        Mazzone


Chief
      Executive Officer/Chief Financial/Accounting Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Seepage study of the Sevier River and the Central Utah, McIntyre, and Leamington Canals, Juab and Millard Counties, Utah      

      January 1, 1981    

View Document

A study of the gains or losses of the Sevier River and the Central Utah, McIntyre, and Leamington Canals in the Leamington area, in Juab and Millard Counties, Utah, was made to determine changes in those reaches. Three to seven sets of seepage measurements made during 1980 were used in the analysis. Adjustments for fluctuations in flow were made from information obtained from water-stage recorders operated at selected locations during the time of each seepage run. The study showed an overall net gain of about 9 cubic feet per second(0.25 cubic meter per second) in the Sevier River and about 1.3 cubic feet per second (0.04 cubic meter per second) in the Leamington Canal. It also showed a net loss of about 7 cubic feet per second (0.20 cubic meter per second) in the Central Utah Canal and about 0.8 cubic foot per second (0.02 cubic meter per second) in the McIntyre Canal. The gains in the Sevier River and Leamington Canal probably come chiefly as return seepage of water lost from the Central Utah and McIntyre Canals.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Salt Lake City Main Office          

2329 West Orton CircleWest Valley City, UT84119-2047United States

doleary@usgs.gov

(801) 908-5014

(801) 908-5001

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Central Utah Canal
                  -  Leamington Canal
                  -  McIntyre Canal
                  -  Sevier River
                  - Utah

View All **
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4892 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to pay special compensation to 

certain veterans with the loss or loss of use of creative organs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2016 

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to pay special compensation to certain veterans with the loss or loss of 

use of creative organs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR LOSS 

4 OF USE OF CREATIVE ORGANS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1114 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(u)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary shall 

9 pay to a covered veteran two lump-sum special compensa10 tion payments each in the amount of $10,000. The second 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4892 IH

1 such payment may not occur less than one year after the 

2 date of the first such payment. 

3 ‘‘(2) Special compensation paid to a covered veteran 

4 under paragraph (1) is in addition to disability compensa5 tion paid to the veteran pursuant to subsection (k), except 

6 that in any month in which the veteran receives a payment 

7 of such special compensation, the veteran may not also 

8 receive such disability compensation pursuant to sub9 section (k). 

10 ‘‘(3) A covered veteran shall submit to the Secretary 

11 a separate, specific application for each payment of special 

12 compensation paid under paragraph (1) in such form and 

13 in such manner as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

14 ‘‘(4) In this subsection, the term ‘covered veteran’ 

15 means a veteran who is paid disability compensation pur16 suant to subsection (k) for— 

17 ‘‘(A) the anatomical loss of one or more creative 

18 organs; or 

19 ‘‘(B) the permanent or static loss of use of one 

20 or more creative organs.’’. 

21 (b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (u) of section 1114 of 

22 title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), 

23 shall apply with respect to a veteran who receives disability 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4892 IH

1 compensation on or after the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
CAT CAY YACHT CLUB, INC., et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Manuel C. DIAZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-0452

Lower Tribunal No. CF17-010447-XX

_____________________________

BRITTANY HARRIS,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge.

July 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Case No: 21-13230-EPK

Chapter 7

CHRISTI LEE STRAUB

Debtor, /

CHRISTI LEE STRAUB Adv. No.: 21-01155-MAM

Plaintiff,

v.

MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN 

AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND 

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL 

JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA [DE #50]

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the aforementioned Order Granting Plaintiff’s 

Verified Motion for Default Final Judgment as to Defendant, University of Missouri, (DE #50)

was served on this 22

nd day of December, 2022 to the following interested parties via U.S. Mail 

and/or ECF System:

Raychelle A Tasher on behalf of Defendant U.S. Department of Education

Raychelle.Tasher@usdoj.gov, Milton.Pacheco@usdoj.gov;Shannon.Patterson@usdoj.gov

Case 21-01155-MAM Doc 52 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 2
VAN HORN LAW GROUP, P.A.

500 NE 4th Street, Suite 200

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(954) 765-3166

(954) 756-7103 (facsimile)

Chad@cvhlawgroup.com

By: /s/ Chad T. Van Horn, Esq.

Chad T. Van Horn, Esq.

 FL Bar #64500

Case 21-01155-MAM Doc 52 Filed 12/22/22 Page 2 of 2
Office of the Chief and Council Kirk E. Francis Chief Bill Thompson Vice-Chief Wayne T. Mitchell

Representative June 30, 2014 Mr. Fred Leutner Office of Science & Technology (Mail Code 4305T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW , Washi n gton D C 20460 E -mai l Leutner. Fred@epa.gov Penobscot Nation 12 Wabanaki Way Community Building Indian Island, Maine 04468 (207) 827-7776 FAX (207) 827-6042

RE: Potential Reinterpretation ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) Provisions regarding Treatment in a Similar Manner to State s (T AS) Dear Mr. Leutner: It has come to t he attention of the Penobscot Indian Nat ion that the U. S

. En v ironmenta l Protection A ge nc y (EPA) is con s idering a reinterpretation of th e ru les govern ing the burden p l aced on Tri be s applying for TAS under the CWA for Section 303(c), Water Qualit y Standard s . C urrentl y, Tribes must demon s trate their own inherent re g ulatory authority, which is challe ngin g and re source inten s ive. This burden a lone has co s t Tribe s both time and funds to me et thi s require ment. The potential reinterpretation which would eliminate the ' ·Montana Test'" by s tating that CWA Section 5 18 i s a de legation by Congress to eligible Tribes to administer C W A regulatory programs over their entire re serva tion s r egardles s of land owner s hip will allow Tribe s to exerci s e th e ir sovereignty by our abi lity and willingness to accept thi s delegation. The Penob sco t Nation has recentl y approved it s Wat er Q u a lity Standards for Penob sco t Indian Territo ry and i s awa iting USE PA ' s review and approval of these standards. The Penob sco t Nation believes E PA· s reinterpretat i on will clarify and st ren gthen th e inh erent regulator y authority of sovereign tribe s to imp lement EPA statutes within reservation s re gardle s s of land ownership. Reinterpretation would validate the legal basis for tribal assertion of regulatory jurisdicti on under the CWA and decrease the admin i strative burden o f case - by-case assessments of tribal authority.As Tribal Chief of the Penobscot Nation, I support EPA's efforts to reinterpret provisions of the CW A regarding the TAS process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this potential rule change.

Kirk E. Francis , Tribal Chief Penobscot Nation
James H. TIPLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D15-5477

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 23, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Compr essors/Engines Dehydrators Pipelines Pneumatics/Contr ols T

anks V

alves W

ells Other 

## PRO Fact Sheet No. 204 

# Replace Glycol Dehydrator With Separators and In-line Heaters Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) for Reducing Methane Emissions



### T

echnology/Practice Overview Description Removing water fr om the pipeline gas entering the distribution system may be necessary to pr event hydrate formation in the distribution pipes, especially in cold operational envir onments. The typical method for water
r emoval in the natural gas industry is glycol dehydration. As an alter native to conventional glycol dehydration, partners have r eported installing separators and in-line heaters. Pipeline gas is expanded and auto-r efrigerated in a cyclone separator to enhance water condensation and separation. The gas is then r eheated to r estor e the gas to a dew point well below any conditions in the distribution system. Since no glycol is used to r e move water fr om gas, the methane emissions fr om a glycol dehydrator ar e avoided. 

### Operating Requirements Electrical r e sistance in-line heaters r e quir e an electrical power supply. Upstr eam pr essur e must be suf ficient for expansion chilling and still meet distribution r e quir ements. 

### Applicability This technology applies to transmission and distribution systems that operate in cold climates.



### Methane Emissions Reductions The methane savings ar e the avoided emissions fr om conventional glycol dehydration operations. Based on industry rules-of-thumb, 3 scf of gas ar e r e quir ed for each gallon of glycol cir culated in a conventional dehydrator unit, and 3 gallons of glycol ar e needed per pound of water r e moved. Ther efor e, with no other contr ols, 9 scf of methane ar e emitted per pound of water r emoved. One partner r eported methane savings of 1,930 Mcf fr om r eplacing 14 dehydrators. 

### Applicable sector(s):

Pr oduction Pr ocessing T ransmission and Distribution



### Partners re porting this PRO: Enr on Gas Pipeline Gr oup 

### Other related PROs: Reduce Glycol Circulation Rates in Dehydrators, Replace Gas Assisted Glycol Pumps with Electric Pumps, Replace Glycol Dehydration Units with Methanol Injection



### Methane Savings: 130 Mcf per year Costs Capital Costs (including installation) <$1,000 $1,000 – $10,000 >$10,000 Operating and Maintenance Costs (annual) <$100 $100-$1,000 >$1,000 

### Payback (Y ears) 0–1 1–3 3–10 >10 

### Benefits Reducing methane emissions was an associated benefit of the project.

### Economic Analysis Basis for Costs and Savings Methane emissions r eductions of 130 Mcf per year apply to dehydrating 10 MMcf per day of gas fr om 7 pounds to 4 pounds of water per MMcf of gas.


### Discussion This technology has a good payback. The capital and operational costs shown above ar e for installing and operating separators and in-line heaters. These costs ar e considerably lower than those associated with glycol dehydrators, and r esult in a quick payout. Methane savings ar e an additional benefit.

Last updated: September 2004