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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1428

In re: CHARLES ELLIS,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(No. 6:06-cr-00037-1)

Submitted: July 10, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Ellis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Ellis petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on 

his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 

motion and motion to reconsider its order denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) and 52(b) motions for reconsideration. He seeks 

an order from this court directing the district court to act. 

We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the 

district court.*

 Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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

 * We note that Ellis filed the pending motions on the same 

day that he noted appeals from related orders. We adjudicated 

these appeals and the mandate issued on May 8, 2013.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3808

Knowles Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests and the 

request failed to show that this particular product is available only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0332 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: 

ATHENA ROSE HAYES FAUSKE, 

Petitioner, 

and 

SHAWN STEVEN FAUSKE, 

Respondent. 

TAMMY S. SPRING, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

ATHENA ROSE FAUSKE, 

Defendant and Appellee. 

FiLlEg) 

OCT 1 1 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Through counsel, Athena Rose Hayes Fauske (Athena) moves this Court for 

imposition of sanctions, including dišmissal of this appeal, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 7(8). 

Self-represented Appellant Tammy S. Spring (Tammy) has not filed a response. 

Athena explains that Tammy filed her Notice of Appeal on June 24, 2022, and that 

this Court appointed a mediator on July 19, 2022. Athena points out that Tammy requested 

an extension of time to submit a position statement on August 3, 2022, the original due 

date, and that Athena did not object. Athena puts forth, however, that Tammy did not 

comply with this Court's Order granting an extension and setting deadlines because 

Tammy never served her position statement; she did not respond to e-mail inquiries from 

counsel and the mediator; and as a result, the mediator cancelled the mediation on 

September 14, 2022. Due to Tammy's substantial noncompliance with M. R. App. P. 7, 

10/11/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0332
Athena requests that this Court impose sanctions, including dismissal and an assessment 

of mediator fees, if any. 

Athena's motion is well-taken. This Court observes that Tamrny has not complied 

with procedural rules or with the Court's order extending the time within which to do so. 

M. R. App. P. 7(3)(b). This Court received the Flathead County District Court record on 

July 29, followed by the exhibits on August 1, 2022. Tammy's opening brief was due on 

August 31, 2022. M. R. App. P. 13(1). The parties did not file a stipulation to hold the 

time requirements of the appellate rules in abeyance pending completion of mediation, as 

allowed by M. R. App. P. 7(3)(b). Tammy did not file an opening brief or move this Court 

for an extension of time to file her opening brief, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 26. Tammy's 

appeal is subject to dismissal for failure to meet the requirernents of the rules. M. R. App. 

P. 13(3). The Court declines to assess any fees. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Athena's Rule 7(8) Motion for Sanctions is 

GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Tammy S. Spring personally. 

DATED this 11 `day of October, 2022. 

/7 ,./ (.s etA 0

Chief Justice 

Justices
###  

**Exhibit32.1**

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March31, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation, I, Bernard H.Clineburg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

(a)           the Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

(b)           the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of,and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| Date: May 9, 2007   |   | /s/ Bernard H. Clineburg             |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Bernard H. Clineburg                 |
|                     |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

** **

----
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1







 









 



THE BOARD OF THIS CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OTHER THAN COMMON
STOCK. THIS CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST SENT TO ITS
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE BOARD’S AUTHORITY TO
CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF
CAPITAL STOCK AS WELL AS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES THEN OUTSTANDING OR AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED.



 





The  following  abbreviations,  when  used in
the  inscription  on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though
they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	TEN COM

	 	—
	 	as tenants in common
	 	UTMA —
	 	 	 	 	 	Custodian	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)
	 	 	 	(Minor)
	TEN ENT	 	—	 	as tenants by entireties	 	 	 	under Uniform Transfers to Minors
	 
	JT TEN

	 	—
	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship
	 	 	 	Act	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	and not as tenants in common
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(State)	 	 






Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in above list.




 





For value received _____ hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto




	 	 	 	 	 

	 	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
 

	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 





 




(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)




 





 




                                                            Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate,
 and do hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint                                         Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.




	 	 	 

	Dated                                                            

	 	X
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	X
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE
NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE
OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR
ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.






SIGNATURE GUARANTEED







ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A
PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM
(“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK
STOCK
EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (“MSP”), OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM
(“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00062

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 342

- 322505

- 20

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### S KY 

### L EASING 

### & R ENTAL



### , LLC D 

### / B 

### / A 

### N AZCARZ



### , AND 

### G EORGES 

### F AOUD



### B ECHARA



### , Appellants

V



### .

A UTOMOTIVE 

### F INAN CE 

### C ORPORATION 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered A ppellant s’ “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant s must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : April 1, 2021
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3241

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3906

Helen of Troy:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Ex-99.4 Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
        Certificatesholders.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         ENDING
    CLASS             INTEREST                 PRINCIPAL                 BALANCE
    -----             --------                 ---------                 -------
<S>               <C>                      <C>                     <C>
A                 $12,148,914.47           $64,237,466.89          $145,077,097.39
B-1                  $470,612.09               $72,132.50            $6,779,181.40
B-2                  $274,520.89               $42,076.86            $3,954,481.28
B-3                  $156,872.99               $24,044.51            $2,259,760.10
B-4                  $109,809.75               $16,830.95            $1,581,812.29
B-5                   $47,063.28                $7,213.57              $677,947.80
B-6                   $78,437.45               $12,022.42            $1,115,252.43
PO                         $0.00                $8,367.98               $77,758.39
R                          $0.00                    $0.00                    $0.00
X                  $1,611,072.42                    $0.00          $222,864,136.00
                  $14,897,303.34           $64,420,155.68
</TABLE>
#### In re the Marriage of Ann Lynn STOTLER, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Loyd Lee STOTLER, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 65172.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.

Nov. 1, 1994.

Michael L. Jackson, Jackson, for appellant.

R. Howard Dillard, Cape Girardeau, for respondent.

Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE and AHRENS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court modifying maintenance. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the circuit court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*203The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2288

WTEC Texas, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

s0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148429

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148429

COA: 311131

Wayne CC: 11-010960-FC

DESHAWN MARTELL GOODMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4910 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4910

To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 
   such section has no effect on certain laws relating to controlled 
             substances and drugs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2023

 Mr. Guthrie introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 
   such section has no effect on certain laws relating to controlled 
             substances and drugs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Deplatform Drug Dealers Act''.

SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN LAWS RELATING TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND 
              DRUGS.

    Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) No effect on certain laws relating to controlled 
        substances and drugs.--In addition to the exception provided by 
        paragraph (1) for Federal criminal statutes, nothing in this 
        section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to 
        impair or limit any action for civil penalties, damages, or 
        equitable relief based on advertising or offering to sell, 
        deliver, distribute, dispense, or introduce into interstate 
        commerce a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of 
        the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or drug (as 
        defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
        Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) in violation of--
                    ``(A) section 401(h) or 403(c)(2) of the Controlled 
                Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(h); 843(c)(2)); or
                    ``(B) section 301(a), 301(d), or 505(a) of the 
                Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a); 
                331(d); 355(a)).''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4958 

To provide first-time, low-level, nonviolent simple possession offenders an 

opportunity to expunge records of disposition after successful completion 

of court-imposed probation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. IVEY (for himself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. JEFFRIES, Ms. LEE of Florida, Ms. 

SCANLON, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, and Mr. MOORE

of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide first-time, low-level, nonviolent simple possession 

offenders an opportunity to expunge records of disposition after successful completion of court-imposed probation. 

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 ‘‘Kenneth P. Thompson 

5 Begin Again Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4958 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATING AGE REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 EXPUNGEMENT OF CERTAIN RECORDS OF 

3 DISPOSITION FOR SIMPLE POSSESSION OF 

4 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY NONVIOLENT 

5 OFFENDERS. 

6 Section 3607(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘and the person was less than twen8 ty-one years old at the time of the offense,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6622]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Meeting of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed 
Forces

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Commission on Roles and Missions of the 
Armed Forces.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the 
Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces.
    The Commission is charged with providing an independent review of 
the roles and missions of the armed services to Congress, the Secretary 
of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The year-long 
review will identify changes that can be made to improve military 
effectiveness and eliminate unnecessary duplication among the services. 
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss some of the specific roles 
and missions issues that are being developed for consideration by the 
Commission. Material to be discussed will consist of both classified 
and unclassified information in a format that makes it impractical to 
separate the two.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. 92-453, as amended (5 U.S.C. App II), it has been 
determined that this Commission on Roles and Missions meeting concerns 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that, accordingly, this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

DATES: March 20, 1995.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Extraordinary circumstances compel notice of 
this meeting to be posted in less than the 15-day requirement.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-6622 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M