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

**No. 15**  **- 1301** 

In re: JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR. , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. (No. 1:13

- cr - 00195

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr. , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: James Lester Roudabush, Jr. , p etitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the district court to provide him with papers he believes he needs to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) or to appoint
counsel to represent him. * We conclude that Roudabush 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 (1976); United States v. Moussaou i , 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Roudabush is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the pet ition for a writ of mandamus.

* In the petition, Roudabush also states that the district court has not ruled on his February 2015 motion seeking a copy of the trial tr anscript and presentence report or, in the alternative, appointment of counsel. To the extent Roudabush seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act on his motion, we find that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the di strict court.

2We 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

3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10075

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00113-TJC-TEM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIPE ALBERTO VERGARA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(November 2, 2012)

Before BARKETT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles L. Truncale, appointed counsel for Felipe Vergara in this direct

Case: 12-10075 Date Filed: 11/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Vergara’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 12-10075 Date Filed: 11/02/2012 Page: 2 of 2
### Proposed Provision: B6.2. Provide the same dollar amount increase to the monthly benefit amount (MBA) of any beneficiary who is 85 or older at the beginning of 2024 or who reaches their 85th birthday after the beginning of 2024. The dollar amount of increase equals 5 percent of the average retired-worker MBA in the prior year.
### Proposed Provision: B6.8. Starting in 2025, provide an additional monthly benefit equal to 1/12th of 2 percent of the AWI for the second prior year.  This additional benefit would be available to those meeting any of the following four requirements:  (a) Social Security beneficiaries who have attained age 82; (b) Social Security beneficiaries who have attained NRA and have both AIME at or below the first PIA bend point ($1,115 for 2023 initial eligibility) and at least 11 "years of coverage" as used for Windfall Elimination Provision purposes (earnings above $29,700 for 2023); (c) Individuals who have received Social Security benefits and/or SSI payments for at least 240 distinct months after attaining age 19; or (d) SSI recipients who have attained the Social Security NRA.  This additional benefit would be paid out of the applicable Social Security OASI or DI Trust Fund for any month in which the individual is in receipt of a Social Security benefit; it would be paid out of the General Fund of the Treasury for any month in which the individual is in receipt of an SSI monthly payment but not a Social Security monthly benefit.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B7.2: Reduce benefits by 5 percent for those newly eligible for benefits in 2024 and later.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Exhibit 35

ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION

I, Laura Cawley,
Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the Servicer), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during
the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006, between the Servicer and the depositor (the Agreement) has
been made under my supervision;

and

(2) To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, I
have specified below each such failure known to me and the nature and status thereof.

Date: March 28, 2014



|                
|----------------
|/s/ Laura Cawley
|Laura Cawley    
|Vice President
#### Bertha Klinger, Respondent, v. Michael Bondy and Morris Pollak, Appellants.

Motion granted, cause certified to court of Appeals.
<PAGE>   1
[WELLS FARGO LETTERHEAD]


November 2, 2000


Mary Beth Fong
Young America Corporation
717 Faxon Road
Young America, MN 55397


RE:  Waiver of Default

Dear Mary Beth:

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, assignee of Norwest Bank Minnesota,
National Association, (the "Bank") and Young America Corporation (the
"Borrower") are parties to a certain Credit Agreement dated as of April 7, 1998
(the "Agreement") as amended.

Section 5.10 of the Agreement states that the Borrower will maintain a Current
Ratio at not less than 1.00 to 1.00 for the Covenant Computation Date as of
September 30, 2000. For the Covenant Computation Date as of September 30, 2000,
the Borrower's Current Ratio was 0.95 to 1.00, thereby creating an Event of
Default under the Agreement.

Section 5.11 of the Agreement states that the Borrower will maintain a minimum
cumulative EBITDA of not less than $7,500,000 for the Covenant Computation Date
as of September 30, 2000. For the Covenant Computation Date as of September 30,
2000, the Borrower's cumulative EBITDA was $6,252,197, thereby creating an Event
of Default under the Agreement.

Pursuant to your request and subject to receipt of a nonrefundable $5,000.00 fee
for waiving the Events of Default and for other valuable consideration, the Bank
hereby waives the violations of Section 5.10 and 5.11 for the period ending
September 30, 2000 as noted in the paragraphs above. This waiver is unique and
specific. The Bank does not waive any other portions of the Agreement, nor do
they give up any of the rights and remedies granted to them thereunder.


Very truly yours,

 /s/  Jeffrey H. Morsman
---------------------------
Jeffrey H. Morsman
Assistant Vice President
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3277 

To enact the Section 401 Certification Rule, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2021 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. 

SHELBY, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. WICKER, Mr. SULLIVAN, Ms. ERNST, and 

Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To enact the Section 401 Certification Rule, 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 ‘‘Section 401 Certifi5 cation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution 

9 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) is designed to provide 

10 States and authorized Indian Tribes an important 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3277 IS

1 tool to help protect the water quality of federally 

2 regulated waters within their borders, in collabora3 tion with Federal agencies through the cooperative 

4 federalism framework of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

5 et seq.); 

6 (2) in the years preceding the date of enact7 ment of this Act, States have denied water quality 

8 certifications under section 401 of the Federal 

9 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) for 

10 infrastructure projects for reasons other than pro11 tecting water quality, such as downstream green12 house gas emissions; 

13 (3) natural gas pipelines, coal production, and 

14 electric transmissions lines are vital to ensuring that 

15 the people of the United States have affordable ac16 cess to energy; 

17 (4) in October 2021, the Energy Information 

18 Administration projected that nearly half of house19 holds in the United States that heat primarily with 

20 natural gas will spend, on average, 30 percent more 

21 to heat those households as compared to the pre22 vious winter; 

23 (5) fuel scarcity and a lack of sufficient infra24 structure to transport natural gas contribute to 

25 higher energy prices; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3277 IS

1 (6) other infrastructure projects, such as road 

2 construction to support interstate commerce, are in 

3 the national interest and warrant regulatory cer4 tainty under section 401 of the Federal Water Pollu5 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341). 

6 SEC. 3. ENACTMENT OF THE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION 

7 RULE. 

8 The final rule of the Environmental Protection Agen9 cy entitled ‘‘Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification 

10 Rule’’ (85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (July 13, 2020)) is enacted 

11 into law. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-06-0029-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 25, 2006

	______________________________

	IN RE MICHAEL LOU GARRETT, RELATOR

	_________________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Michael Lou Garrett has filed a document with this court, in the form of a letter addressed to the court’s clerk.  In the letter, he requests that Caroline Woodburn, Potter County District Clerk, be instructed to take certain actions.  With the letter, Garrett encloses a copy of correspondence he says he has sent to the district clerk.  Reading his letter to this court’s clerk liberally, we will construe it as a petition for a writ of mandamus.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.

	This court has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court judges within our court of appeals district.  Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003).  Otherwise, our authority to issue such a writ exists only to the extent necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a).  Before it can be said that we are acting to enforce our jurisdiction, the dispute made the basis of the petition must somehow implicate a pending appeal.  Wolters v. Wright, 623 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. 1981); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); Upjohn Co. v. Marshall, 843 S.W.2d 203, 204 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1992, no writ).

	Garrett has an appeal pending in this court.1  His current correspondence, though, asks that the district clerk be instructed to file a petition, which he says he sent the clerk in December 2005, and to notify him of the filing date and cause number assigned.  The petition will initiate a new lawsuit.  Nothing in Garrett’s current correspondence indicates that his dispute with the district clerk implicates his pending appeal.  We conclude the relief he now seeks is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.  Since he seeks relief against a district clerk and not against a judge, we therefore have no jurisdiction to consider his request.

	Accordingly, we dismiss Garrett’s petition for want of jurisdiction.      

						James T. Campbell

						        Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10372

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTHUR MARIN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-6-41

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Arthur Marin, Jr., has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Marin has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10372 Document: 00515311365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2020
No. 19-10372

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-10372 Document: 00515311365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7349

JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN R. KUPLINSKI,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (CA-05-389-3-JRS)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 3, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Lee X Smith, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and his motion for

reconsideration, for failure to exhaust state remedies. The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Testimony on United States Strategic Command and United States Space Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2023 and the future years defense program. 

HERE

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Exhibit
23.3








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
ENGINEERS





As independent engineering consultants,
Ryder Scott Company, LP hereby consents to the use of our report entitled
“Southwest Royalties, Inc., Estimated Future Reserves and Income Attributable to
Certain Leasehold and Royalty Interests, SEC Parameters, as of December 31,
2007” dated February 20, 2008 and data extracted therefrom (and all references
to our Firm) included in or made a part of this Form 10-K Annual Report to be
filed on or about March 14, 2008 and to the incorporation by reference of
this Form 10-K Annual Report (including the use of our report and references to
our Firm herein) into that certain Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed by
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission, file
number 333-116825, and those certain Registration Statements on Form S-8 filed
by Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
file numbers 33-68320, 33-68318, 33-68316, 33-69688, and 33-92834 covering the
Bonus Incentive Plan of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., 1993 Stock Compensation
Plan of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., Outside Directors Stock Option Plan of
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan &
Trust, and the Executive Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Clayton Williams
Energy, Inc., respectively.

















RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, LP





Houston,
Texas


March 10,
2008
Amendment Number Two to Master Services Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
 Amendment No. 2 to Master Services Agreement 
 This Amendment Number Two (this “Amendment 2”) is
entered into this 22nd day of April, 2009 (the “Amendment 2 Effective Date”), by and between Antigenics Inc., a Delaware corporation having an address at 162 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900, New York, New York 10010 (the “Company”) and
Raifarm Limited, a Cyprus registered company, having an address at Cyprus- Limassol 3030, 35 Thekla Lysioti street Eagle Star House, 6th floor, (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”). Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, Company and Raifarm Limited are parties to that certain Master
Services Agreement with an effective date of May 23, 2007 (as amended from time to time, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the
Parties now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and
agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The Parties acknowledge and agree that the term of the Agreement shall be extended through [**]. 

  

	 	2.	The Parties further acknowledge and agree that, except as set forth in this Amendment 2, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  

	 	3.	This Amendment 2 shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, U.S.A. irrespective of any conflicts of law principles thereof.


 [**] = Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a confidential treatment request. An unpredicted version of this exhibit
has been filed separately with the Commission. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties each have caused this Amendment 2 to be executed by their duly respective
authorized representative as of the Amendment 2 Effective Date. 
  

			
	ANTIGENICS INC., a Delaware corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kerry Wentworth
	Name:	 	Kerry Wentworth
	Title:	 	Vice President Clinical, Regulatory and Quality
	
	Raifarm Limited
		
	By:	 	/s/ Yuri Raifeld
	Name:	 	Yuri Raifeld
	Title:	 	President and CEO


 [**] = Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a confidential treatment request. An
unpredicted version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Commission.
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-20057, 333-20073, 333-31398, 333-76096,333-76654, 333-85518, 333-106270, 333-106271 and 333-110706) of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries of our report dated August 3, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Education ManagementCorporation and Subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

September 13, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Clinton, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 580]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered April 18, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, resisting arrest, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor misrepresented and distorted the defense, vouched for her own witnesses, and expressed her personal disbelief in the defense during her summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; *People v Halm,*81 NY2d 819 [1993]). In any event, the prosecutor’s statements constituted fair responses to remarks made by the defense counsel during summation (see *People v Halm, supra*at 821; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105 [1976]; *People v Ryant,*278 AD2d 345 [2000]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.