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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-540

In Re: WILBERT GUICE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-240)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbert Guice, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Guice has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from

this court seeking an order compelling the district court to dismiss the criminal indictment against him. Mandamus is a drastic

remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v.

United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the

relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826

(4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In

re Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th

Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy

burden of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain

the relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear

and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S.

33, 35 (1980). Guice has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we

deny mandamus relief. 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
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1107

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow married individuals

who are legally separated and living apart to exclude from gross income

the income from United States savings bonds used to pay higher education tuition and fees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow married individuals who are legally separated and living

apart to exclude from gross income the income from

United States savings bonds used to pay higher education tuition and fees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1107 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING SEPA2 RATE RETURNS ALLOWED TO EXCLUDE IN3 COME FROM UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS

4 USED TO PAY HIGHER EDUCATION TUITION

5 AND FEES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 135 of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

8 rules for exclusion of income from United States savings

9 bonds used to pay higher education tuition and fees) is

10 amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5)

11 and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new

12 paragraph:

13 ‘‘(4) CERTAIN MARRIED INDIVIDUALS LIVING

14 APART.—For purposes of this section, an individual

15 shall not be considered as married in a taxable year

16 if such individual—

17 ‘‘(A) is married and files a separate return

18 for such taxable year,

19 ‘‘(B) as of the close of such taxable year,

20 is legally separated from the individual’s

21 spouse, and

22 ‘‘(C) was not a member of the same house23 hold as the individual’s spouse at any time dur24 ing the taxable year.’’
3

•HR 1107 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 2000.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dwayne Hearns

v. Civil No. 05-cv-413-SM

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Dwayne Hearns has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus and supporting documents, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction

and confinement (document no. 1). He asserts that he has

exhausted all but one claim and that the unexhausted claim,

challenging the legality of consecutive sentencing, currently is

pending before the New Hampshire state courts. Given his statute

of limitations concerns under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he has filed the

instant mixed petition in order to preserve his exhausted claims.

Because Hearns has elected to proceed in state court, I

order the federal proceedings stayed and the petition held in

abeyance, pending his resolution of state court remedies. Once

he has exhausted state remedies, he must request this Court to

Case 1:05-cv-00413-SM Document 6 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 2

Hearns v. NH State Prison, Warden Doc. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
2

lift the stay and preliminarily review his federal petition. 

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 20, 2005

cc: Dwayne Hearns, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00413-SM Document 6 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 15



                                   1345 Avenue of the Americas
                                   New York, NY 10105


May 14, 1998

KeySpan Energy Corporation 
One MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Gentlemen:
                                   
We are aware that KeySpan Energy Corporation has incorporated by
reference in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-66182, 333-04863,
333-03441, 333-06257 and 333-18025, its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 1998, which includes our report dated April 30,
1998 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained
therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933,
our report is not considered a part of the registration statements
prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified
by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


Very truly yours,


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



     Dated: August 14, 2006

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Company Pyramid Oil (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




     Date: August 14, 2006

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 759**  **4**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. ISRAEL HERNANDEZ

- HERNANDEZ , Defendant

- Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00063

- gec - mfu

- 12; 5:10

- cv - 80283

- gec uu )

Submitted : January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dism iss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Israel Hernandez

- Hernandez , Appellant Pro Se
. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Israel Hernandez

- Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this sta ndard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When t he district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hernandez

- Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALEXZANDRA BLANCO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ251

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED that James R. Kozel is appointed as attorney of record for the 

above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in this 

matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the 

name and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska and James R. Kozel.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F.A. Gossett, III

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00251-SMB Doc # 15 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 37
1A

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 37

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

for the appointment and voting, by congressional district, of electors

for the election of President and Vice President, and to provide procedures for electing the President and Vice President if no candidate

receives a majority of electoral votes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 13, 2001

Mr. CLEMENT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide for the appointment and voting, by

congressional district, of electors for the election of President and Vice President, and to provide procedures for

electing the President and Vice President if no candidate

receives a majority of electoral votes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 37 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE —

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. In an election for President and Vice

6 President, each State shall appoint one elector for each

7 district in that State represented by a member of the

8 House of Representatives. Each elector shall cast a vote

9 for the candidates for President and Vice President who

10 received the greatest number of popular votes in that dis11 trict.

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. Each State shall appoint two electors

13 who shall each cast a vote for the candidates for President

14 and Vice President who received the greatest number of

15 popular votes in that State.

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Electors for the District constituting

17 the seat of Government of the United States as provided

18 by the twenty-third article of amendment shall each cast

19 a vote for the candidates for President and Vice President

20 who received the the greatest number of popular votes in

21 the District.

22 ‘‘SECTION 4. If no candidate for an office receives

23 a majority of the votes cast by the electors, then from the

24 two candidates for that office receiving the highest number

25 of electoral votes, the House of Representatives shall
3

•HJ 37 IH

1 choose immediately, by ballot, one candidate who shall

2 serve in that office.

3 ‘‘SECTION 5. If ratification of this article by three

4 fourths of the several States occurs within the calendar

5 year of a Presidential election, this article shall not take

6 effect until the following Presidential election.

7 ‘‘SECTION 6. Congress shall have the power to en8 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6092

JOHN DOUGLAS HASTINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; PATRICK

J. GURNEY; GEORGE E. DEEDS; S. R. VANN;

SERGEANT KELLY; MARGARET WATKINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-1044-R)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Douglas Hastings, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order dismissing his

complaint without prejudice for failure to amend. We dismiss the

appeal.

This court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal concerning an order dismissing an action without prejudice where the

underlying defect could be cured by simple amendment of the complaint. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we dismiss the current

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
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,Fl,RSTCIRCUIT

KAREEN GEORGE VERSUS BYRON TERRY, TERRY TRUCKING, LLCAND OOIDA RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC.

In Re: Kareen George, applying

Judicial District Court, No. 713726. NO. 2022 CW 1303



### MARCH 6, 2023

for supervisory writs, 19th Parish of East Baton Rouge,

BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The trial court's September 19, 2022 judgment granting OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc.'s exception of no right of action and dismissing OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc. with prejudice is a final appealable judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915 ( A) (1). Therefore, the writ application is granted, for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the trial court with instructions to grant relator, Kareen George, an appeal pursuant to the pleading that notified the trial court of her intention to seek supervisory writs. See In re Howard, 541 So.2d 195, 197 ( La. 1989) ( per curiam). In the event plaintiff, Kareen George, seeks to appeal the trial court's judgment, she shall submit an order for appeal to the trial court within thirty days of this court's order. Additionally, a copy of this court's order is to be included in the appellate record.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERKOF COURT FORTHE COURT JEW AHP WIL
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,790,260
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    214,019
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         504,058
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 624,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,132,914
<COMMON>                                       853,643
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      461,617
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            96,012
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,411,272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          58,162
<PREFERRED>                                    60,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,914,788
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             191,250
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 267,037
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  25,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,205,405
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  5,132,914
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      1,186,024
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           66,250
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     940,770
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     1,007,020
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        179,004
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             11,268
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 190,272
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       84,711
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,561
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    4,532
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  101,029
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       78,268
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      72,315
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         237,662
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.18



</TABLE>
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is further amended by striking

4 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu
2

•HJ 79 EH

1 thereof ‘‘January 10, 2002’’; and by striking the date

2 specified in section 123 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Jan3 uary 1, 2002’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 20,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes.
ex_154621.htm


Exhibit 10.214


 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED


UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


(Original Principal Amount $2,500,000)


 


This Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Unsecured Promissory Note (the "Amendment") is made as of June 30, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation ("Maker"), and GOLISANO HOLDINGS LLC, a New York limited liability company ("Holder").


 


WHEREAS, the Maker is indebted to the Holder under a certain Amended and Restated Unsecured Promissory Note in the principal amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), dated August 30, 2017 (the "Note"); and


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Holder have agreed to amend the Note in accordance with this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.     In the introduction paragraph, the phrase "June 30, 2019" is hereby restated in its entirety to read as "October 22, 2021" such that the Maturity Date shall be October 22, 2021.


 


2.     Except as expressly amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.     Upon the effectiveness of this Amendment, each reference in the Note to "the Note," "this Note," "hereunder," "hereof," "herein," or words of similar import shall mean and be a reference to the Note, as amended by this Amendment.


 


4.     This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, and agreements between such parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. To the extent of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the Note, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall govern.


 


5.     This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, including by means of facsimile and/or portable document format, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same document.


 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 


 


Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated


Unsecured Promissory Note ($2,500,000 - Golisano Holdings)


 



 




 




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


 


	
			 

				
			TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS, INC.

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			/s/ Anthony Zolezzi

				
			 Date:  7/8/2019

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 Anthony Zolezzi

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 Chief Executive Officer

				
			 

			



 


 


	
			 

				
			GOLISANO HOLDINGS LLC

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			/s/ B. Thomas Golisano

				
			 Date:  7/8/2019

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			      B. Thomas Golisano


			      Member

				
			 

			



 


 


Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated


Unsecured Promissory Note ($2,500,000 - Golisano Holdings)